■^-^0^ 


S^'^ 


/o^ 


^^ 


i.MiflUjA 


A 
TREATISE 

ON 

BAPTISM: 

BEING 

A  REPLY  ' 

To  a  Book  ev\t'\t\ed 
A  DEBATE  UN  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

BETWEEN 
MR.  JOHN  WALKER  &  ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL, 

Held  at  Moimtpleasantf  on  the  i9th  8C 

20th  June,  1820. 

TO  WHICH  IS  .flDDED 

A  LETTER 

to    tHB 

REV.  SAMUEL  RALSTON. 
BY  JOHN  WALKER, 

'•liNTSTF.R  OP  THE  GOSPEL  IN  THE  ASSOCIATE  CONGHE- 
GATIONS  OF  MOUNTPLEASANT  AND  UNITT,  OHIO. 

Let  another  man  praise  thee,  and  not  thine  own 
tnouth.     Prov.  27.  ?, 

The  last  shall  be  fir«t,  &  the  first  last.  Matt.  20. 16. 
A  double  minded  man  is  unstable  in  all  his   yvsiys. 

James,  1.  8, 

MOlWTPLEMJiJ^'T,  OHIO. 

««    WRIGHT    &    B.    BATES — PRINTERS. 

1824. 


DISTOICT  OF  OHIO,  Scr. 

Be  it  remembered,  that  on  the   nineteenth  'dav 
of  July  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  one  thousand,   eight 
hundred    and  twenty  three,  and   in    the  forty  eighth 
yparotthe  American  Independence,  JOHN  \VALK- 
Mi  ot  saul  District,  hath  deposited  in  t^iis  Office,  the 
title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  he  claims  as  author, 
in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:     -'A  1  rea- 
tise    on  Baptism,  being  a  reply   to  a  book    entitled  a 
WA   V'i'^T,       "f*'^"    Baptism,  jjetween    Mr.  JOHN 
.    ^;     S?   ^'"^  ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL,  held 
at    Mt.  Pleasant  on  the  19th  and  £Oth  June.  1820,  to 
Which  IS.  added,  a  Letter  to  the  Rev.  8  xMUEL  R  AL 
feJON,by    JOHN   WALKER,  Minister  of  the  Gos. 
pel,  in  the  associate   congregations  of  Mt.   Pleasant 
ano  Unity   Ohio."     In  confotraity  to  the  act  of  Con- 
gress   of  the   United    States,  entitled  «an  act  for  the 
encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the    Copies 
of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Bonks,  to  the  authors  and  L- 
pnetors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  men- 
tioned,    and  aiso  of  the  act  entitled,  "an  act  supple- 
mentary   0  an  act  entitled,  an  act  for  the  encourage- 
ment  of  learning    by  securing    the  Copies  of  Maps, 
Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of 
such  copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned,  and 
extending  the  benefits   thereof  to  the  arts  of  design- 
pf.its!'"^''^''"'^'  ^"'*  ^*"''"^'  »^i«torical  ;and  other 

I   L.  S.    I  HARVEY  D.  EVANS. 

^^''^'•^^'^  C^erk  of  the  District  of  Ohio,' 


m. 


FREKflCE:, 

At  the  time  of  the  public  dispute,  ]  inti- 
mated that  I  had  no  dcsio'o  of  vM'itiiig  uj»on 
th<'  subject  of  baptism.  Mr.  Camp!)cll  cftea 
iulimalcd  his  intention  of  wriiing,  I  then  be- 
liev<'d  as  lspo'\e;  and  hud  Mr.  C.  given  my 
a»'S'J»!;Pnts  as  tht\y  were  delivered,  vr  '  veri 
hav  done  me  tolerable  Justice;  I  .  should 
never  hsve  written. 

it;>  bonk  however  was  harmless  inthe  neigh- 
bduihood  of  the  place  w  here  the  di?«pnte  was; 
th'  rp  people  h  d  h»aid  the  dispute  &  judgtd. 
for  themselvrs.  Still  I  had  nointentii)n  of  pub- 
lishing. Hut  some  considerable  time  after, 
I  received  letters  from  distant  places,  w  here 
people  had  no  knowledge,  either  of  Mr.  C. 
or  myself,  earne>tl;y'  requestirtg  me  to  publish. 
I  at  length  complied,  and  commenced  mukiiig 
some  preparations.  Sometime  after  thi**,  X 
understood,  that  a  second  edition  of  Mr.  C's. 
bock  wrffe  about  to  be  published  in  Pitts-burg. 
I  waited  anxiously,  but  yet  waited  n  long 
time,  hoping  that  Mr.  C.  w  ould  make  su'  h 
alterations,  or  concessions,  as  would  either 
supercede  the  necessity  of  my  pni)lication,  or 
make  me  think  that  he  designed  to  be  can- 
did and  tell  the  truth,  But  I  was  astonished 
when  the  second  edition  made  its  appearance. 
-—It  was  Mr.  C.  still. 


PREFACE. 

.f  muiniilicity  of  official  concerns  and  nro» 
vidential     occuiTences   delate!    this    work 
otherwise  U    might    have   a'ppeared    mS 

nnT^JV''^?"'''^  "[  *'"^''  ^'^«'  *he  end  I  pro- 
posed  by  th.  puolic  debat.,  n  was  the  ^end 
f  ^*"^  »"  view  when  I  wrote.  How  far  ifc 
IS  pineo  the  reader  maj  jndge 

1  m.ght  mention  that  1  understand  xVIr.   G. 
18  pubhfthine;    a   historv    of  the   dinute    Hp 

jecton«hicl,  Wft  dispute,!,  I  lioi.e   the    pub- 

ceroed!  '  '™'''  *'''™  *'■"""'/!»  ^»«- 

The  chuicl.  of  Christ   feels  the    effect   of 

aieour  defects;  but  any  person  who  by  known 
sh'S'r'b"""';""  "'''  '"  '■"grievance^ 

I  only   ask  the  reader  to  pass  over  all  mv 

"delects    in    conalni>~ii..n     „„   i  X 

.«„„:.  "'nsiructiDn,   or  lanzuaM.  and 

thr^idi/^S"'^"'''^^"^"^^'^"^- 

*\eMj  Athens,  Jammry,  14th.  18:^4. 


INTRODUCTION.  ^ 


Sometime   early  in  the  year  1820,  Mr.  Walker 
was  requested  to  preach  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
at  the  house  of  a  Mr.  John  Gray;  about  five  miles 
S.  W.  from  Mountpleasant,  Ohio,  in  the  vicinity  of 
a  Baptist  meeting  house.     The  Baptists  about  that 
time,   were    making  a  considerable  stir   in   the 
neighbourhood,  and  such  preachers   as  'they  had, 
were  zealously   opposing  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism,   and  the  mode  of  sprinkling,  in  the   ad- 
ministration of  this  sacrament.     Mr.  W.  answered 
the  request,  and  preached  upon  the  subject.     He 
felt  conscious   of  the   unpopularity  of  preaching 
on  any  disputed  subject;  but  believed  it  to  be  his 
duty,  rather  to  consult  the  interests  of  truth,  than 
popular    opinion.     Accordingly,  he  preached   on 
that  passage, Math.   3.11.     /  indeed    Baptizeyou, 
with  water.     In  answering   objectrons  ofiered  by 
Baptists,  Mr.  W.  found  it  necessary  (o  reply  to 
some  observations   made  by   a  Dr.   Baldwin;  be- 
cause the  Baptists  were  industriously  circulating 
these  pamphlets,   in   the   neighbourhood  at  that 
time.     When   the   sermon  was  closed,  and    the 
public  worlf^ofthe  day  finished,  a  Mr.   Birch,  said 
to   be  a  Baptist  preacher,  requested   Mr.  W.  to 
point   out  the  part  quoted  in  any  of  the  works  of 
Dr.    Baldwin.     Mr.  W.  had  the  pamphlet   in  his 
pocket,  and   the    different    passages   marked,  to 
which   he  refered,  in  the   sermon.     He  mi  medi- 
ately showed  Mr.  B.  the  passaye.     After  some  ob- 
servations upon  it,  Mr.  VV.  observed,  that  he  under- 
stood  there  were   two  Baptist  preachers  piesent; 
that  men  professing  this  character,  should  be  un- 
williijg  to  mislead  people;  and  that  he-thought  it 
6 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

was  now  their  duty  to  enter  into  a  public  conver' 
sation  upon  the  subject:  tliis  would  do  justice  to 
all  parties,  and  would  give  the  people  an  opportu* 
nity  of  judging  for  themselves.  Mr.  B.  replied 
that  he  had  to  preach  at  some  distance  from  that 
place,  on  tliat  evening;  and  could  not  detain.  Mr. 
W.  observed  that  if  it  wsls  not  convenient  for  him 
then  to  detain,  he  thought  it  a  duty  they  owed  to 
their  respective  hearers  and  the  church,  again  to 
meet,  and  converse  upon  the  subject  publicly.  Mr. 
B.  without  agreeing,  intimated  to  the  people  the 
day  on  which  he  would  preach  on  the  subject,  and 
so  closed  the  conversation. 

Sometime  after  this,  Mr.  W.  received  a  line 
from  the  same  Mr.  B.  informing  him,  that  he 
should  be  met  on  the  subject  of  the  sermon,  by 
some  Baptist  minister.  To  which  Mr.  W.  express- 
ed his  readiness  to  comply,  upon  two  conditions^ 
1st.  That  he  should  be  of  good  moral  character: 
and  2udly.  Tliat  he  should  be  a  regular  minister  of 
the  baptist  society.  Mr.  B.  in  reply,  wrote  that  he 
liad  obtained  a  consent  from  Mr.  Alexander  Camp- 
bell, a  regular  minister  of  their  church,  and  inti- 
mated that  he  should  meet  Mr.  W.  for  a  public 
dispute  on  the  19th  of  June,  at  Mountpleasant. 
This  is  the  whole  foundation  of  the  pompous  and 
bantering  advertisement  of  which  Mr.  C.  declared 
himself  the  author. 

Mr.  W.  neither  challenged  Mr.  Campbell,  or  any 
other  minister  of  the  baptist  church,  for  a  public 
dispute.  He  requested  a  public  conversation,  with 
any  who  heard  him  preach  the  sermon  on  that 
subject,  but  did  no  more. 

On  the  morning  of  the  public  dispute,  Mr.  W. 
requested  some  proof  of  Mr.  C's  being  a  regular 
Baptist  minister.    Mr.  Birch  read  some  of  the  ex- 


(  INTRODUCTION^.        '  S 

tracts  of  the  minutes  of  their  associations;  these 
mentioned  that  Mr.  C.  was  a  writing  clerk  at  some 
of  their  meetings;  but  whetlier  he  took  any  part 
in  their  deliberations,  or  decisions,  was  not  stat- 
ed: or  whether  he  was  a  hired,  voluntary,  or  stat- 
ed clerk,  no  hint  was  given.  Mr.  W.  as  he  had 
no  disposition  to  decline  the  debate,  however  ad- 
mitted that  he  was  some  species  of  Baptist  minis- 
ter; although  he  felt  persuaded  that  the  state  of 
the  Baptist  church  was  low,  when  Mr.  C.  was 
chosen  for  their  best.* 

The  followini*  rules  were  presented  by  the 
Judges,  Mr.  Martin  and  Rev.  Findly,  and  sigi> 
ed  by  the  disputants. 


*It  is  disputed  by  some  baptists,  whether  Mr.  C. 
was  ever  admitted  as  a  regular  minister  of  their 
church;  yet  I  think  it  probable  he  was,  because  I 
understand  some  left  their  communion  in  conse- 
quence of  his  admission.  However,  let  this  matter 
be  as  it  may,  some  years  ago,  no  baptist  association, 
would  have  admitted  him;  for  whatever  were  the 
conditions  of  his  admission,  it  is  now  completely 
in  his  power  to  disseminate  all  his  particular  views 
amongst  the  members  of  that  society — his  opinion 
of  the  moral  law — covenant  of  works,  and  parti- 
cularly of  the  sabbath,  will,  in  due  time,  take  root 
among  them.  And,  as  there  are  but  few  learned 
ministers  in  that  church,  in  the  western  country, 
it  will  give  him  influence.  Whatever  may  be  the 
opinion  of  his  learned  acquaintances,  he  considers 
himself  no  mean  scholar.  Influence,  without 
soundness,  is  dangerous.  It  would  be  well  for  the 
Baptist  association  to  read  Paul's  1st.  Epistle  t» 
the  Corinthians. 


INTRODUCTION. 


'This  controversy  shall  be  conducted  by  thefol- 
'  lowing  regulations,  viz. 

'  1st.  It  shall  be  opened  with  prayer,  by  some 
'person  agreed  upon  by  the  part-es. 

'2ad.  Tlve  parties  shall  not  be  pei-mitted  to  in- 
'  terrupl:  e.iCt'.  other,  except  to  corrf-ct  mistalces. 

'3rd.  All  dimiiiutive,  or  disre.!^pectful  personal 
'allusions,  and  ali  impassioned  declamation,  shall 
•be  deemed  disorderly, 

'4th.  In  all  cases,*  the  privileges,  and  regula- 
'  lions  of  each  party  shall  be  equal, 

'5th.  Thcpoints  to  be  adhered  to  in  the  discus- 
'  sion,  are  first,  the  subjects,  and  secondly,  the 
'mode  of  christian  baptism,  viz.  Are  believing 
'adults  alone  (o  be  baptized,  or  are  their  infant 
'  offspring  to  be  included  with  them,  in  their  right 
'  to  that  ordinance?  and  is  immersion  as  the  mode, 
'exclusively  to  be  used? 

'6th.  Each  of  the  parties  may,  at  their  option, oc- 
'  cupy  forty  minutes  in  their  stated  replies,  but 
'  shall  not  lie  obliged  to  fill  up  tliat  length  of  time; 
'nor  on  the  account  of  stopping,even  atthecxpira- 
'  tion  of  3  or  5  minutes,  be  considered  as  yielding 
'  the  question." 

'  7th.  This  controversy  will  be  the  subject  of  ad- 
'  journment,  from  day  to  day,  until  the  subjects  are 
'  discussed,  to  the  satisfactionof  the  judges."* 


*  These  rules  being  the  constitution  by  which' 
the  disputants  w^ere  governed,  must  have  been 
more  radically  fixed  in  the  memory  of  Mr.  C.  than 
any  of  Mr  W's  speeches.  The  reader  will  do 
well  to  compare  these  rules  with  those  mentioned 
by  Mr.  C.  in  his  preface;  and  if,  in  the  rules  of  the 
debate,  such  v«^ere  his  deviations,  what  is  to  be  ex- 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

Before  signing  the  above,  Mr.  C.  contended  a 
longtime  upon  the  impropriety  of  first  discussing 
the  subjects  of  infant  Baptism,  telling  the  audience 
that  the  mode  was  the  most  important  subject,  and 
should  be  first  discussed;  that  "sprinkling  was  no 
more  baptism,  than  a  thong  of  leather  was  his 
boot."  The  parties  agreed  to  choose  twelve  men, 
to  decide  upon  the  question,  that  should  be  first 
discussed;  these  were  to  choose  the  thirteenth. 
These  men  returned,  in  a  few  minutes,  and  report- 
ed that  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  was  to  bethe 
first,  and  most  appropriate  question,  to  be  discuss- 
cd.f 

Mr.  Walker  then  proceeded  to  read  the  advertise- 
ment mentioned  above,  in  which  it  was  stated  that 
*'Mr.  Walker  having  challenged  any  minister  of 
the  baptist  church"  ^c.  Mr.  Walker  tben  public- 
ly denied,  that  ever  he  had  challenged  any  min- 
ister of  the  Baptist  church,  for  a  dispute.  Mr.  C. 
after  stating  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  pub- 
lication, said  that  he  had  received  the  information 
from  Mr.  Birch:  by  request,  Mr.  B.  then  made  a 
full  statement  of  what  had  passed  at  the   place,  at 


pected  in  the  view  he  has  given  us  of  the  speech- 
es? 

Tliese  rules  were  obtained  from   Mr.  Findly,by 
Mr.  Munroe  of  Canonsburg,  Washington  Co.  Pa. 

t  The  persons  chosen  by  Mr.  C.  were  Esq.  Cur- 
tis, Messrs.  Martin,  Birch,  Dawsey,  Thomas  Camp- 
bell, and  Bryant. 

Bv  Mr.  W.  Rev.  Findly,  Anderson,  Dr.   Hamil- 
ton,  Messrs.  Adams,  P.  Miller  &  McLaughlin.  The 
13th  chosen  by  them  was  Mr.  McMillen. 
B2 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

which  Mr.  W.  preached. ||  The  substance  of  which 
is  already  given.  Mr,  Birch  gave  no  hint  of  suc]i 
a  challenge.  A  falsehood  rested  some  place;  and, 
although  Mr.  W.  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
public,  that  no  such  challenge  was  given,  Mr.  C. 
never  blushed — he  appeared  at  ease;  this  however, 
Vvas  tolerable.  The  size  of  the  audience,  and  Mr. 
C's  opinion  of  himself,  now  required  him  to  put 
the  best  possible  face  upon  the  matter:  but  extra- 
ordinary as  it  may  appear,  we  have  the  game  as- 
sertion in  his  printed  history  of  the  dispute,  Page 
1.  The  conversation  Mr.  W.  had  with  Mr.  B.  was 
public.  The  public  statement  made  by  Mr.  B. 
was  accurate — Mr.  C.  is  left  alone  in  the  asser- 
tion. 

The  import  of  the  advertisement  was,  that,  as  Mr. 
W.  Goliah-!ike  has  defied  the  whole  forces  of 
the  Baptist  church — I  Alexander  Campbell,  a  regu- 
lar minister  of  the  Baptist  church,  still  mightier 
than  he,  in  the  name  of  the  whole  Baptist  society, 
am  determined  to  meet  him.  J 

Mr.  0.  long  anxious' tomake  a  publick  appearance, 
endeavouring  by  every  possible  exertion  to  have 
him-ielf  noticed,  having  failed  with  the  best  class- 
es of  religious  society,  appears  under  the  signature 
of  '■'•  Candidus'^  (a  term  the  least  appropriate  to 
himself)  in  which  he  openly  enlists. against  moral 
societies — against  the  religious  observation    of  the 

II  The  friarht  in  which  Mr.  B.  appeared,  1  think 
did  not  prevent  him  from  telling  the  truth,  1  be- 
lieve he  was  candid. 

I  Mr.  C  styles  himself  a  regular  minister  of  the 
Baptist  Church,  in  ihe  title  p  <§e  of  ins  book — 
has  this  church  two  orders  of  the  ministry,  one 
regular— another  irregular.'' 


INTRODUCTION.      .  7 

sabbath,  Ac. — securing  to  himself  a  retreat,  when 
the  assylum  of  regular  churches  became  hopeless. 
But  now  an  excellent  opportunity  offers  in  public 
debate;  he  embraces  it;  and,  when  thf^  world  refu- 
ses approbation,  he  easily  supplies  the  defect,  by 
giving  it  to  himself. 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS. 

That  there  was  a  public  dispute  between  Mr, 
Campbell  and  Mr.  Walker,  on  the  1 9tli  .  and  20th 
of  J'liie,  1820,  is  almost  the  only  truth  (Contained  in 
a  publication,  written  by  Mr.  Campbell;  pupport- 
ing  tobe  a  history  of  that  dispute,  &  stating  tho  sub- 
stance of  the  speeches  delivered  by  the  disputants. 

If  it  had  been  the  intention  of  Mr.  C.  to  do  jus- 
tice, he  would  have  only  published  such  notes  as 
were  taken  by  disinterested  persons;  the  dispu- 
tants themselves  had  another  employment  than  ta- 
king notes — those  observations  were  alone  noted 
by  them  to  which  they  intended  to  eply.H  Mr. 
T.  Campbell,  Father  of  Mr.  A.  Campbell,  with 
whose  notes  Mr.  C.  says  he  was  favored — page  2nd, 
actively  commenced  taking  notes  at  the  beginning 
of  the  dispute;  but  after  the  second  reply  made  by 
Mr.  W.  he  ceased,  in  a  great  measure,,  noting;  and 
wrote  tickets  and  handed  them  across  the  table  to 
his  son.  This  conduct,  certainly  unjust,  was  men- 
tioned to  Mr.  W.  in  the  first  recess:  but  he  felt  no 
disposition  to  forbid  it.  Mr.  Findly,  one  of  the 
judges,  also  mentioned  this  circumstance,  but  said 
he  would  not  cause  him  to  desist,  unless  I  required 
him;  lestfhey  should  think  he  was  assumir^.  The 
truth  is,  the  son  needed  the  assistance  of  the  Fa- 
ther, without  whose  help,  the   debate  would  not 

H  A  short  publication  in  the  Washington  Repor- 
ter, signed  Fluto,  was  the  first  truth  published  re- 
specting this  debate — I  am  not  certain  who  was 
the  author  of  that  paper — he  has  certainly  done 
justice  to  the  disputants,  though  his  signature 
would  have  permitted  him  to  havfe  taken  all  the 
liberty  of  Mr.  Campbell. 


10 


OBSERVATIONS. 


probably  have  lasted  through  the  first  day  Mr 
TV  .contended  with  the  father^:  the  son  fortwoday.' 
Had  this  m  any  degree  aided  the  investigation 
of  truth,  It  miffht  have  been  borne  with  But  it 
was  generally  observed,  that  when  the  son  re- 
ceived a  note  from  the  father  he,  always  made  an 
efforttochange  bis  ground;  because  the  old  sen- 
tieman  thought  it  not  tenable.  The  truth  i=  the 
son  only  excells  the  father,  in  ease  of  communi- 
cation; bur  in  disputation,  the  father  as  far  e.xcells 
the  son--and,  although  the  father  is  deservedly 
unnoticed  by  the  li^^ng,  n  is  not  because  he  is 
de^c:ent,eltherin  literature  or  talents;  but  be- 
cause,  from  some  species  of  delirium,  his  faith,  his 
creed  was  as  changeable  in  character  and  positi- 
on?, as  the  aurora  borealis. 

On  the  19  and20  of  June  Mr.  C.  had  not  the 
power  of  forming  his  opponent;  but  when  he  comes 
to  write,  be  makes  one  small  enough— one  easily 
vanquished.  This  is  first  manifest  in  the  len-th  of 
his  peeches  compared  with  those  of  Mr  W'  The 
following  certificate  I  received  from  a  learned 
gentlemen.member  of  the  general  assembly  church 
who  attended  everv  moment  of  the  debate  ' 

"Debate  on  baptism  by  J  walker   and  A    Camp- 
bell;     length    of     time  spoken    by  each.     Each 
spoke  16  t>mesin  the  following  proportion- 
*;Quesi,OD  1st.  Who  were  the  fit  subjects   of  Bap- 
tism r  •'  r 

Mr.  Walker.  Mr.  Campbell. 

SpucK  rmmites.  Speech.  miiiuUi. 
^     '      3  2-19 

8    ^      13  4-1 

5-29  6-21 

*     -     22  8-32 

^     -      20  10-26 


OBSERVATIONS. 

11  - 

^5 

12  - 

27 

13  - 

15 

14  - 

28 

15  - 

25 

16  - 

40 

17  - 

26 

18  - 

10 

19  - 

37 

20  - 

32 

21  - 

14 

22  - 

27 

23  - 

29 

24  - 

24 

25  - 

27 

26  - 

31 

2"^  - 

29 

28  - 

40 

II 


Q.  2nd.  What  is  the  proper  mode  of  Baptism? 
Mr.  Walker.  Mr.  Campbell. 

Speech,  minutes.  Speech,  minutes. 

1  14  2         39 

3         20  4         35 

Total  length  of  Mr.  C's  speeches,  7  hours  12  mi- 
nutes. 

Total  length  of  Mr.  W's  speeches,  5  hours  48 
minutes. 

Difference  in  favor  of  Mr.  C.  during  the  2  days, 
1  hour  24  minutes. 

I  certify  the  above  to  be  correct. 

JOHN  m'cracken. 

But  the  form  in  which  we  find  the  speeches  of 
Mr.  W.  in  the  miserable  statement  of  his  argu- 
ments, may  indeed  render  them  an  easy  prey  to 
Mr.  C,  Some  of  the  most  important  observations 
are  entirely  omitted.  He  appears  only  to  have 
introduced  as  many  of  Mr.  W's  arguments  as  serv- 
ed his  purpose;  &  even  these  are  presented  in 
such  a  mutilated  form,  that  he  (Mr.  C.)  might  the 
more  easily  manage  them.  Thus  Mr.  C.  makes  a 
ccdlection  of  arguments  in  a  pitiful  shape  indeed; 
then  displays  his  eloquence  in  causing  them  to  ex- 
pire. Had  Mr.  C.  by  writing,  only  intended  to  re- 
ply to  those  arguments  used  by  Mr.  W.  in    the  de- 


12  OBSERVATIONS. 

bate,  which  he  found  himself  unable,  at  that  time 
to  answer,  there  might  have  been  some  excuse :  but, 
when  the  whole  history  of  the  debate  is  his  declared 
object;  the  world  can  never  approbate  his  honesty. 

Out  of  many  examples  I  shall  only  note  a  few;  and 
let  these  serve  for  the  remaind- r — page  51.  He  re- 
presents Mr.  W.  as  asking  tor  "a  positive  command 
for  the  institution  of  a  church."  To  this  Mr.  C. 
replies  with  great  activity,  page  52.  The  question 
was  never  asked,  nor  iiad  it  any  meaning;  and  of 
course  the  reply  was  lost.  The  question  was. 
"Have  we  a  positive  command,  for  all  the  ac- 
knowledged institutions  of  the  church?"'  Had 
he  stated  the  question,  as  it  was,  we  might  have 
expected  some  form  of  an  answer.  We  might  then 
have  tried  hi,n  upon  some  of  those  rites  in  the  church 
he  acknowledges. 

To  save  himself  the  odium  which  every  man  of 
sense  must  of  necessity  attach  to  him,  we  have 
him  setting  his  phrases  of  astonishment  different- 
ly, in  his  book,  from  the  facts,  as  they  were  deli- 
vered in  the  debate.  When  speaking  of  the  new 
covenant,  pag.  39,  'Paul  saith  the  new  covenant 
'  is  better  than  the  old.  Mr.  W.  says  it  is  just  the 
same.'  He  then  adds  that  burst  of  acclamation 
page  86,  •  I  stand  on  the  first  ground  on  which  I 
'hare  ever  heard  &c.'  But  this  he  has  omitted; 
for  then  it  vvould  have  bfen  evident  that  he  never 
had  read  any  theological  work,  and  that  he  never 
had  been  a  pedo-Baptist. 

Pag.  65.  He  has  Mr.  W.  asserting  that  the 
church  received  its  origin  with  Abraham'^  cove- 
nant. ButMr.  W.  had  no  disposition  to  date  the 
commencement  of  the  existence  of  a  church,  with 
Abraham;  but  throughout  the  whole  debate  he 
maintained  that  the  church  coma.enced  its  exis- 


OBSEUVATIONS.  18 

tence  with  tlie  first  person  on  earth  that  believed; 
yet  asserted  that  the  church  received  a  particular 
organization  in  Abraham. 

Pag.  81.  Mr.  W.  asks,  what  did  circumcision  seal 
Mo  Ishmael?'  This  question  was  important — Mr. 
C  to  have  given  it  an  honest  answer,  would  have 
lost  a  paint:  but  after  he  diverts  the  reader  with  a 
few  Jiourish4:s  upon  it,  he  takes  an  easy  way  of  re- 
moving  the  difficulty,  P.  90,  'Mr.  Walker   will 

*  please  to  answer  the  folloiving  queries.  1st, 
What  did    circumcision  seal  to  Ishmael? 

P.  75.  In  a  part  of  Mr.  W's.  speech,  we  have 
this  expression — "I  maintain  that  temporal  bless- 
'  ings  as  well  as  spiritual  are  enjoyed  through 
'  Christ,  or  were  a  part  of  Christ's  purchase".  Up- 
on this  he  adds  a  few  jests,  and  intimates  a  fact, 
which  otherwise  might  never  have  been  leaNied, 
that  he  hadheard  of  the  Covenanters  &  Seceders  in 
Scotland,  P.  78.  But  the  truth  is,  Mr.  W.  ne- 
ver  made  the  assertion;  or  even  Mr.  C.  these  re- 
marks, until  they  were  made  in  his  book.  For 
the  satisfaction  of  the  resider,  I  shall  copy  the 
notes  of  Mr.  Miller  as  they  were  taken.  'As  all 
'  the  blessings   believers  enjoy,  come  through  the 

*  covenant  of  grace,  and  as  circumcision  was  a 
*seal  of  that  covenant,  circumcision  confirmed  Vie 
'promise  of  temporal  blessings,  as  well  as  spiritu- 
'  al;  but,  as  it  was  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
'  denied  that  it  confirmed  the  promise  of  temporal 
'blessings  only.'  Throughout  the  debate,  Mr. 
W.  expressed  no  other  sentiment  than  that  com- 
mon to  pedo — Baptists;  much  less  did  he  oppose  a 
sentiment  of  that  branch  of  the  church,  to  which 
he  has  the  honor  of  belonging.  Mr.  C.  whose 
christian  system  (ifit  maybe  so  called,)  las  be- 
come so  general,  seems  incapable  of  comprehend- 

C 


14  OBSERVATIONS. 

ing,  that  right  which  the  covenantor  grace  con- 
veys to  believers,  in  their  enjoyments  of  temporal 
blessings;  and  of  understanding  why  the  earthly 
Canaan  was  promised  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed 
by  Isaac. 

Mr.  W.  showed  that  the  right  which  Abraham 
had  to  that  land,  was  materially  the  same  with  that 
jvhich  any  believer  had  to  his  earthly  possessions. 
Ahlessing  through  Christ,  removes  the  curse  from 
temporal  things.  And  this  is  universally  true,  to 
all  saints;  whether  they  lived  under  the  old  or 
new  testament.  Thus,  by  misrepresentation, 
which  I  hope  was  not  wilful,  and  then  by  some 
sporting  upon  it,  a  share  of  the  arguments  of  the 
debate  was  lost. 

I  might  notice  such  things  in  almost  every  page, 
but  why  complain?  the  sacred  oracles  have  receiv- 
ed the  same  treatment;  some  of  these  will  be  no- 
ticed in  due  time.  I  would  now  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reader  to  one,  Pag.  164 — Mr.  C.  says 
Christ  was  born  to  perform  'the  mercy  promised  by 
'the  father,  and  to  remember  his  holy  covenant.'' 
Luke  1  72,  '■To  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our 
'  FATHERS  and  to  remember  his  holy  covenant.^ 
If  Mr.  C.  had  done  this  passage  justice,  even  in 
quotation,  it  would  have  told  the  reader  a  fact, 
that  the  covenant  of  grace  had  an  entailment — 
that  promises  were  made  by  God  to  children 
through  their  parents;  a  truth  which  every  Bap- 
tist feels  unwilhng  to  grant. 

In  Page.  196,  he  makes  the  following  state- 
ment '  I  would  observe,  that  at  the  close  of  the 

*  debate  at  Mountpleasant,  some  of  the  Pedo-Bap- 

*  lists  (as  1   afterwards  understood  from  some  of 

*  the  most  creditable  witnesses)  proposed  violently 

*  forcing  us  to  quit  the  ground  by  argumentum  Ba- 


OBSERVATIONS.  15 

*  culinum.^  The  truth  of  this  matter  is  known  to 
Mr.  C.  He  should  not  have  made  this  statement. 
I  will  now  narrate  the  substance  of  the  whole  mat- 
ter. Mr.  Thos.  Campbell,  Father  of  Mr.  A.  C. 
when  the  work  was  over,  rose  and  addressed  the 
audience;  as  he  had  no  legal  concern  in  the  mat- 
ter, and  was  guilty  of  improperly  aiding  his  son, 
in  the  dispute,  and  for  many  years  had  been  ex- 
tremely unpopular — a  few  of  Mr.  C's  own  country 
mencryedout — 'Down  the  old  apostate,'  'Down 
THE  old  apostate.'  When  the  old  gentleman  began 
to  speak,  Mr.  W.  mentioned  to  Mr.  C.  to  icq'.iest 
his  father  to  desist;  lest  the  resentment  of  the  pub- 
lic would  be  expressed  too  far — Mr.  T.  C.  had 
no  more  right  to  ^peak  than  any  other  man 
in  that  assembly.  He  declared  in  that 
speech,  that  he  had  "retired  behind  the  curtain" 
and  it  was  generally  believed  that  he  would  do  the 
most  good  by  staying  there. 

But  as  it  respects  Mr.  A.  Campbell,  a  leading 
pedo-baptist  had  spoken  to  a  respectable  iiikeeper 
in  the  town  of  Mountpleasant;  to  treat  him  well 
and  keep  him  free  of  expense;  all  of  which  was 
done,  Mr.  W.  feels  persuadt  d  that  there  were  no 
affronts  offered  to  Mr.  A.  Campbell  during  that  de- 
bate,that  he  received  honorable  treatment,through- 
out  that  occasion,  by  all  classes  of  the  audience. 
These  complaints,  howeter,  serve  to  character- 
rise  Mr.  C. — and  show  what  those  are  to  expect 
who  treat  him  well. 

The  observations  of  Mr.  C.  upon  the  Rav.  Find- 
ly  are  both  unju'^t  and  ungenerous  Although 
Mr.  W.  is  in  a  grent  measure  unacquainted  with 
Mr.  Fiudly,  yet  his  conduct  as  a  judge  in  that  de^ 


16  OBSERVATIONS: 

bate  was  upright.*  Mr.  Findly  objected  to  the 
reading  of  Rtbison's  observations  upon  the  char- 
acter of  Cyprian,  noticed  by  Mr.  C.  in  page  118 
— because  at  that  time,  it  was  an  unnecessary  ruin 
oftlie  character  of  a  good  man.  Had  any  autlior 
of  good  standingbeen  brought  forward  to  impeach 
the  character  of  Cyprian,  as  it  respected  truth 
and  veracity;  it  would  •  liave  been  relevant;  and 
Mr.  Findly  would  not  have  objected — Because  the 
only  use  Mr.  W.  had  made  of  the  works  of  Cypri- 
an, was  to  enquire  after  the  truth  of  a  single  fact,  • 
whether  infants  were  baptised  or  not,  in  that  age. 
But  to  expose  what  Mr.  Robison  supposed  were 
his  errors,  did  not  effect  his  veracity  as  an  histo- 
rian. 

The  address  of  Mr.  Findly  as  one  of  the  judges 
was  only  a  discharge  of  the  duty  of  his  station, 
during  the  debate.  The  judge  of  Mr,  C.  had  the 
sanie  opportunity,  if  he  thought  his  cause  would 
not  justify  him  in  using  his  privilege.  Mr.  F.  was 
not  to  blame:  and  because  lie  told  his  sentiments 
without  disguise,  Mr.  C.  should  not  have  been  of- 
fended. For  the  satisfaction  of  the  reader  I  shall 
now  publish  the  substance  of  the  speech  of  Mr. 
Findly  as  handed  me  by  one  who  noted  the  sub- 
stance of  what  he    spoke. 

"Mr.  Findly  remarked  as  follows."       'To  my 
'satisfaction,    my    brethren,    Mr.     Walker    has 

*  Mr.  Findly  was  chosen  by  Mr.  W.  as  ins  Judgb, 
not  from  any  previous  acquaintance,  but  for  two 
reasons.  1st.  Because  he  was  not  a  minister  of  the 
same  communion  and  therefore  impartial, and  2ad. 
Because  he  had  publicly  defended  the  moral  as- 
sociation of  West  Middleton  agamst  the  attacksof 
Mr.  Campbell. 


OBSERVATIONS,  11 

'  proven  that  the  church   received  its  "first  public 

*  org'^nization  in  Abraham,  by  that  covenant  called 

*  the  covenant    of  circumcision — and  that  inthis 

*  covenant  was  revealed  the  covenant  of  qrace, 
'  which  presented  to  men  the  everlasting  gospel, 

*  and  orgfanized  ;hem  into  a  vii^ible  body  called 
*the  church;  and  it  has  been  proven  to  my  satisf  ic- 
'tion,  that  circumcision  was,  at  that  time,  the  only 

*  visible  sign  of  that  ory^atiiz'^d  body,  the  church; 

*  and  so  long  as  the  body  will  remain  visible,  it  will 

*  have  visible  signs  necessarily  connected  with  the 

*  administration  of  the  covenant  of  grace." 

*It  is   certainly  admitted    that  the  church  thus 

*  defined,  exists  in  the  present    day.     The  chang- 

*  ing  of  the  outward   sign,  no   more  destroys  the 

*  church,    than   the   changing  of  a    man's  name, 

*  changes  his  being.     In  this  visible  organization  of 

*  the  covenant  of  grace,  children  were  introduced 

*  by  positive  Divine  authority.  It  is  admitted  that 
*.the  sign  is  changed,  but  the  members  are  not  ex- 

*  pelled.'  ■         . 

'  There  is  still  a  sign;  this  is  baptism;  children 

*  were  formerly  acknowledged  members  of  the  vis- 
'  ible    church,  as    divinely    constituted..   When? 

*  where?  or  by  whom  is  this  abrogated?" 

"  It    is    acknowledged'  that    members   of  the 

*  church  are  entitled  to  baptism;  but  the  member- 
'  ship  of  children  is  proved  v  stt^er  little  children  to 

*  come  unto  me^  for  of  such  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

*  God  has,  in  every   age  of  the-  church,,  acknow- 

*  ledged  the  children  of  his  people  as  near  to  him. 
'  So  the  apostle  argues  Rom.  11.  and  1st.  Cor.  7. 
'  And  the  continued  history  of  the  church  confirms 

*  and  illustrates  the  scriptHres  on  this  point." 

"  Brethren;  it  is  now  evident,  on  the  side  of  the 
'  opposition,  that  their  principles  not  only  tend  ta 
C2 


18  OBSERVATIONS. 

'the  denial,  but  in  fact  do  deny  the  being,  of  a 
'  church  before  the  c  omnia;  of  Christ — and  since 
'  that  time,  their  principle8  do  actually  un'churcli 
'  the  whole  christian  world,  with  the  exception 
'  of  that  small  section  of  the  church  called  Baptists.' 
*  Permit  me  also  to  observe  that  on  the  side  of 
'  the  opposition,  the  question  in  debate  was  seldom 
'  touched; the  speaker  wandered  from  the  point, 
'  flew  from  the  subject,  and  with  gigantic  strides^ 
'entered  into  an  uncultivated,  field  of  witticisms; 
'  and  thereby  attempted  to  diiect  the  attention  of 
'  the  audience  from  the  subject  in  dispute,  or  di- 
'  vert  by  touches  of  oratory,  or  rather  gtZcZcd.  & 
^painted  buffoonery,  and  satyrizim,  not  only  his 
^  opponent  and  the  cause  which  he  ably  and  judi- 

*  ciously  defended;  but  also  those  precious  men  of 
*■  God  who.  being  dead  yet  speak.  He  has  also 
*■  awfully  abused  the  sacred  oracles    of  the  living 

*  God,  by  profanely  jestuig,  and  by  turning,  or  en- 
*•  deavoring  to  turn  the  sacred  text   from  its  real 

*  import.  This,  my  brethren,  is  my  judgment  of 
'  the  debate.     The  other  judge  is  at  equal  liberty 

*  with  me  to  speak  his  mind."* 

Mr.  C.  states  that  he;  received  a  letter  from  Mt. 
rieasant,  dated  June  16^  1820.  Signed  Philo  Jus- 
titi(e — which  'e  ter  he  gives  to  the  public  at  length, 
page  4,  5.  Not  one  word  of  this  letter  is  true.  All 
those  who  attended  the  public  ministrations  of  Mr. 
W.  can  attest  its  falsity.  Neither  the  public 
banter  of  Mr.  C.  or  the  dread  of  his  mightiness  on  the 
mind  of  Mr.  W.  made  any  change  in  the  public 
discourses  either  previous  to,  or  since  the  debate* 

From  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  leading 

*  Mr.  Martin,  the  other  judge,  did  not  think  pro^ 
per  to  give  his  sentiments. 


OBSERVATIONS.  19 

charactfrs  of  that  place,  Mr.  W.  knows  of  none 
who  have  any  acquaintance  with  the  Latin  or 
Gieek  langnae:es,  except  one,  who,  whoever,  is  a 
gentlemnn;  and  of  course  was  not  the  author  of 
that  letter,  and  if  any  other  citizen  unacquointed 
Willi  these  languages,  used  the  signature  of  Philo 
Justilifff  he  was  not  in  possession  of  common  sense; 
and  therefore  was^not  entitled  to  credit.  But^  tlie 
probability  is,  few  saw  this  letter  except  Mr.  C. 
who  was  well  accustomed  to  a  signature  *  of  like 
import — and  as  unfairly  applied.  Why  did  Mr. 
C.  give  for  a  truth,  the  malicious  surmise  of  an 
individual?  Is  the  object  of  Mr.  C.  the  investiga- 
tion of  truth? 

We  have  an  instance  of,  Mr.  C's  ingenuity,  great- 
ness of  soul,  and  unexpected  candor;  which  more 
than  compensates  for  all  his  misrepresentations. 
As  an  opponent  at  last  he  appears,  generous.  He 
writes  a  letter  to  Mr.  W.  gives  him  an  opportunity 
of  correcting  his  book  now  finishing  in  the  office 
at  Steubenville,  and  with  a  generostiy  unequaled, 
at  his  own  expense,  and  to  the  great  injury  of  his 
purse,  dedicates  iweniy  four  pages  of  that  work  to 
the  mxly  use  ofMr.  W.  in  order  that  Mr.  W.  might 
correct  mistakes  if  any  should  unfortunately  be 
made.  He  had  three  full  weeks  given  him  for  this 
purpose — The  reader  will  please-to  read  Mr.  Mil- 
ler's certificate. 

Steuhenvilh^  May  Srd.  1823. 
T  do  hereby  inform  all  who  may  feei  themselves 
interested  in  the  information,  that  to  my  know- 
ledge Mr.  Walker,  did  not  receive  the  'etter  adr 
dressed  to  my  care  for  him  by  Mr.  Campbell,  until 
the  time  specified  in  the  letter  had  el-.ipsed,  say  a 
Treek  or  two  at  least.  JAMES  P.  MILLER. 
*Candidu6. 


20  ©BSERVATrONS. 

The  probabilifyi?,  tf'aiMr.  C.  V.i^^nt  cnffrr  the 
lettf  r  to  depart  from  hiin>ie  If  until  tf.e  three  w  p^ks 
were  nearly  closed  -  lest,  unhappily,  Mr.  W. 
might  attend  to  his  rtquest.  Mr  C.  knew  thai  Mr. 
W.  lived  in  a  pnst-town;  as  a  few  weeks  before  the 
debate  he  bad  directed  a  letter  to  him.  At  any 
rate,  Mr.  W.  wa?  rot  a  private  charoc'er;  and  it 
must  have  been  a  fact,  that  Mr.  C.  knew  that  if  he 
ywould  dirpctly  senda  letter  to  Mr.  W.  he  would 
be  as  likely  to  receive  it  as  any  other  person. 

Why  did  not  Mr.  C.  know  that  Mr.  W.  had  re- 
ceived that  letter  before  he  printed  Ml  As  an  evi- 
dence of  his  honesty,  had  he  taken  the  trouble  cf 
askinjr  Mr.  Miller,  he  would  have  found  tl  e  truth. 
No — Mr.  C.  must  appear  honest,  let  the  truth  be 
as  It  will.  But  had  Mr.  W.  received  the  letter, 
what  could  be  hare  done?  either  put  ore  black 
stroke  upon  the  whole,  or  have  written  remarks 
and  left  them  in  the  power  of  Mr.  C.  to  be  manag- 
ed as  his  speeches  were — so  that  when  Mr.  C.  was 
done  with  the  remarks  they  would  not  have  beea 
Mr,  W's  but  Mr.  C"s remarks. 


A   REPLY. 

It  is  not  our  intention,  in  the  prosecution  of 
the  subject  before  us,  to  follow  the  devious  track 
marke(3  out  by  Mr.  C.  This  would  leave  the  sub- 
ject in  that  form,  in  which  none  could  be  edified. 
But  in  the  establishment  of  our  assertions,  we 
shall  attend  to  all  the  ob^ervations  of  Mr.  C.  wor- 
thy of  notice.     Our  first  assertion  is: 

That  God  did  immediately,  alter  the  fall  of 
man,  establish  a  church  upon  earth,  which,  has 
continued  ever  since— and  will  remain  an  ever- 
lasting kingdom. 

That  there  is  a  difference  between  the  church 
visible  and  invisible  will  appear  by  observing, 
1st.  That  she  has  a  vi^ib;e  exietence,  aider  vis- 
ible laws,  rules  and  regulations.  There  may  be 
membersliip  in  this  visible  body,  without  any 
union  in  reality  to  Christ:  although  such  profes- 
sion will  nei  her  be  profit-r«blc  lo  the  persotj  in 
in  time,  or  eiernity.  Tnis  appears  from  Math.  IS- 
IS. "Every  plant  which  m}  heavetily  Adl.er  hath 
no.t  planted  shjiU  be  rooted  up.'*  These  are 
plants  inserted  by  men  in  God's  vineyard — such 
were  Simon  Magus,  Demas  &:c.  If  they  had  not 
been  plante(3  thev  could  not  have  been  rooted  up. 

I  wciuld  therefore  ciefire  the  church  visible  to 
be,  a  nuniher  of"  the  family  of  Adam,  sepertited 
from  the  uorld  by  profession,  and  umied  together 
as  a  body,  in  professed  relation  to  C<  rist  their  ac- 
kf  owledged  head,  promising  obediet'ce  to  his 
l.tws,  and  declaring  that  they  will  receive  eternal 
salvation  from  him. 

Bui  by  the  ctiurch  invisible,  v.e  n  enn  such 
members  of  thiB  visible  body  as  are    united  to 


22  BAPTISM. 

Christ  Jesus,*  living  amongst  the  members  of  the 
visible  cliurcli,  and  with  them  professing.  This 
body  I  define  to  be  a  number  of  sinners  called  out 
of  the  world  by  the  special  grace  of  God,  to  eter- 
nal communion  and  fellowship  Avith  him — and  this 
effected  by  the  agency  of  the  holy  spirit,  sent  by 
Jesus  Christ  the  Lord. 


The  scripture  represents  (he  church,  of  Christ, 
as  composed  of  the  different  classes  1  have  speci- 
fied. Math.  13.  27.  "Sir,  didst  thou  not  sow 
good  seed  in  thy  field?  from  whence  then  has  it 
tares?"  The  distinction  is  also  warrantable  from 
1st.  John2.  19.  'They  went  out  from  us,  but 
they  were  not  of  us."  From  which  it  is  evident 
thatthej  stood  in  scnne  relation — it  was  not  carnal, 
for  no  such  relation  exists  in  the  church;  it  must 
then  have  been  in  some  sense,  spiritual.  But 
they  were  not  in  fact  spiritually  united;  because 
'  they  were  not  of  us.'  It  is  evident  that  all  the 
union  such  professors  had  to  the  church,  was 
a  professed  visible  relation. — They  had  nothing 


*Why  some  distinguish  the  old  and  Nt'w  Tes- 
tament church,  by  calling  the  latter  the  Gospel 
church  I  cannot  well  understand.  The  dispensa- 
tioii  of  grace  under  the  old  testament,  was  the 
gospel,  althc  ugh  it  was  m  the  form  of  law.  They 
were  therefore  as  truly  members  of  a  gospel 
church,  as  we  are.  Todehcribe  \ht  N<^w-testament 
church  by  tie  appellation  olgospel  churchy  seeme 
rather  to  deny  that  the  former  djspeuaation  was 
the  gospel. 


BAPTISM.  23 

more,  they  were  not  united  to  Christ.  'They 
went  out  from  us.'* 

Several  things  were  necessary  to  coftstitute  a 
church  of  Christ. 

1st.  They  must  be  a  body  seperated  from  the 
world.  The  Greek  word  eklesia,  usually  translat- 
ed church,  very  well  expresses  this — called  out  of 
the  world  by  the  ordinances  appointed  by  God  for 
that  purpose. 

2nd.  That  the  body,  thus  called,  be  considered 
as  purchased  by  Christ;  seeing  they,  wilh  the  rest 
of  the  world,  were  enslaved  by  sin,  they  must  be 
a  body  redeemed — they  must  possess  a  plea  of 
Justification,  such  as  the  Judge  will  admit.  This 
is  the  ris^hteousness  of  Christ.  Hence  the  sonsf 
of  the  true  members  of  this  body — Rev.  5.  9. 
Thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by 
thy  blood,  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and 
people,  and  nation.' 

3rd.  That  they  be  recognised  by  Christ,  as  his 
people,  to  whom  he  gives  promises,  and  all  (he  or- 
dinances of  his  house. 

4th.  That  he  stands  related  to  them  by  a  mar- 
riage covenant,  in  which  they  are  his  Spouse  and 
he  their  husband. 

That  such  was  the  church  under  the  old  testa- 
ment,   will  appear  from  a  few  considerations. 

1st.  They  were  distinguished  from  the  world 
by  God  himself — Amos  3.  4.  'You  only  have  I 
known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth.'  Here  was 
a  relation  acknowledged  to  the  Jews,  distinct 
from   all  others.     Considered   abstractly  as  a  na- 

*It  would  not  have  been  necessary  to  b«  so  ex- 
plicit in  the  above  distinction  had  it  not  been  ma- 
terially denied  by  Mr.  C, 


24  BAPTISM. 


tion,  the  relation  of  all  nations,  to  God  i«  the  same. 
It  is  true,  that  under  a  theoeratical  government 
they  possessed  more  privilcires  than  other  na- 
tions; but  the  difference  of  privilea^e  will  not  va- 
ry the  nature  of  relation — Considtrred  as  a  nation, 
they  were  governed  by  a  positive  law  from  Hea- 
ven, specially  and  particularly  revealed, — called 
the  Judicial  law — but,  to  a  certain  degree,  he 
knows  all  other  nations  in  the  same  sense.  The 
law  of  nature  is  also  the  divine  privilege  of  na- 
tions, although  Heathen— and,  to  all  the  extent 
that  this  law  goes,  has  all  the  natural  authority  of 
any  law.  But  the  passage  cited,  expresses  a  dis- 
tinct relation,  which  can  only  be  understood  of 
the  church. 

2nd.  They  were  a  people  purchased.  Jacob 
acknowledged  this.  Gen.  48.  16.  He  speaks  in 
the  true  language  of  a  member  of  the  old-testa- 
ment church.  'The  angel  who  redeemed  me  from 
all  evil.'  The  redemption  of  the  church  was  ac- 
knowledged from  the  beginning.  Isaiah  63.  9.'  In 
all  their  affliction  he  was  afflicted,  and  the  an- 
gel of  his  presence  saved  them;  in  his  love  and  in 
his  pity  he  redeemed  them,  and  he  bare  them  and  car- 
ried them  all  the  days  of  old.^  But  if  any  should 
suppose  that  this  was  a  prophetic  description  of 
the  New-testament  church,  let  them  attend  to  the 
words  cited— that  which  he  will  do,  he  has  done 
in 'the  days  of  old.'* 

3id.  That  they  were  organized  his  people,  is- 
evident  from  their  being  frequently  called  in  scrip- 
ture, by  God  himself,  'my  people.'  'The  congre- 
gation of  the  Lord.' &c.  Nay,  their  unity  as  a 
body  is  directly  expressed,  Song  6.  9.  'My  dove, 
my  undef^led,  is  but  one.' 

4th.  That  he  stood  related  to  them,  by  a  mar- 


BAPTISM.  25 

riage  covenant,  is  expressly  declared,  Isaiah  54. 
5.  'for  Ihy  maker  is  thine  hushand;  the  Lord  of 
Hosts  is  his  )iame.'  Jer,  3.  14.  'Turn,  O  back- 
sUding  children,  saith  the  Lord:  for  I  am  married 
unto  you.' 

But  against  this  doctrine  Mr.  C.  zealously  con- 
tends. He  is  probably  the  first  Baptist  writer, 
that  so  fully  asserls  his  opinion  tn  opposition  to  it. 

Mr.  C.  not  terrified  at  any  assertion,  throws  off 
all  disguise,  and  lets  himself  appear.  However 
evident  the  truth  of  tlte  New  and  Old  testament 
church  being  one,  is;  yet  the  confirmation  of  a  fa- 
vorite point  demands  its  sacrifice — it  must  be  of- 
fered, an  object  is  to  be  gained.  Mr.  C.  mufit  be 
well  aware  that  it  never  entered  the  minds  of  the 
original  Baptists  to  pass  this  sweeping  rcvohitionf  by 
cutting  olF  all  the  Old-testament  saints,  by  one 
blmo  from  church  membership. 

P.  26.  'This  remnant  according  to  the  election 
'  of  grace'  did  not  continue  in  the  same  visible  state  in 
'  which  they  formerly  existed.  This  remnant  was 
'the  root  or  beginning  of  the  new  testament 
'  church.  This  remnant  had  no  priest,  no  pro- 
*phet,  no  king,  no  temple,  no  sacrifice,  but  the 
crucified  Jesus'  8{c.  It  is  therefore  evident  that 
a  difference  of  privileges  must  make  a  difference 
in  the  identity  of  a  body.  A  man  cannot  be  the 
same  now  he  was  ten  years  ago;  for  this  unan- 
swerable reason;  he  was  then  poor  and  he  is  now 
rich.  So  the  church  has  had  her  times  of  pover- 
ty and  persecution;  her  wealth  and  prosperity: 
she  cannot  therefore  be  the  same  now,  she  was  in 
former  times. 

There  was  a  time  when  she  needed  her  temple, 
altars,  priests  &c. — but  the  arrivals? her  Lord  has 
made  her  independent  of  these.    Is  she  therefore 
D 


2.6  BAPTISM. 

not  the  same  body?  But  will  Mr,  C.  argue,  that 
the  difference  of  circumstances  will  destroy  the 
identity  of  the  church?  He  will  then  destroy  e- 
ven  identity  itself — scarcely  any  individual  body 
is  one  heurin  the  same  precise  state. 

But  the  church  has  now  her  crucified  Jesus — 
So  had  Abraham  the  father  of  the  faithful  "he  saw 
his  day  afar  off  &  was  glad."  Christ  was  seen  by  all 
in  the  s:ame  way — viz.  by  faith.  But  when  Christ 
disappear  in  the  flesh  it  was  to  ^confirm  the  promi- 
ses made  unto  tlie  fathers:"  that  is,  to  the  old-tes- 
tament church,  Rom.  15,  8.  These  promises  were 
the  ground  of  their  faith.  He  was  their  hope, 
their  i-ighteousness.     Jer.  23,  C. 

Christ  was  the  person  revealed  in  the  first  pro- 
mise made  to  man.  He  is  as  truly  tlie  substance 
of  the  OH  as  of  the  New  testament.  "All  things 
must  be  fulfiled,  which  wei'e  written  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  con- 
cerning me."  Luke  24.44.  The  difference  be- 
tween the  faith  of  Old  and  New  testament  saints, 
oould  never  affect  the  justification  of  either:  both 
possessed  the  same  legal  plea,  and  the  same  way 
of  claiming  it — and  each  had  the  same  iVee  grant 
of  elcnial  life  in  the  everlasting  gospel.  Christ 
came  to  increase  both  the  privileges  and  numbers 
of  the  New- testament  church;  but  not  to  destroy 
the  former  and  create  the  latter. 

But  his  last  reason,  is  fatal;  it  decides  the  point; 
none  must  controvert  it.  Page  26.  'To  this  soci- 
ety of  Jews,  this  remnant,  according  to  the  elec- 
tion of  grace,  the  Lord  added  the  saved  daily" 
"This  was  called  the  first  christian  church  Acts  2. 
47.  But  tlie  honest  reader  will  turn  to  the  scrip- 
ture passage  quoted  by  Mr.  C.  and  he  will  find  the 
argument  has  this  disadvantage,  that  its  pioof  is 


BAPTISM.  iJl 

not  in  the  Bible;  and  its  highest  authority  is  Mr.  C's 
brain.  Read  the  passage — "and  the  Lord  addtd 
to  the  church  daily,  such  as  should  be  saved." 
But  where  have  ive  any  account  that  this  "was 
called  the  first  christian  church?"'  a  writer  that 
can  make  scripture  is  never  at  a  loss  for  proof. 
But  Mr.  C.  unhappily  connects  a  declaration  of 
the  apostle  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  with 
this  expression  of  Luke,  in  the  book  of  Acts,  becau.-e 
Paul,Avhen  bespeaks  of  this  remnant  according  to 
the  election  of  grace,  includes  all  the  Jews 
'saved  daily' Act.  2.  47 — of  course,  (common  sense 
sayti)  there  could  be  no  addition  to  tlie  remnant. 

Tijis  argument  is  therefore  defective  in  two  re- 
spects—  1st.  apart  of  it  is  self  created — because 
they  arc  not  called  the  first  christian  church — 
2ndly.  Because  those  converted  by  the  mmistry 
of  Peter  were  not  added  to  the  remnant  saved  ac- 
cording to  the  election  of  grace,  being  a  part  of 
their  number-  Let  us  inquire  for  the  simple  fact! 
It  is:  those  converted  by  the  ministry  ot  the  apos- 
tles, were  added  to  the  church,  which  annunces 
to  us  this  truth,  that  before  this  time  the  church 
of  Christ  existed;  these  converts  were  not  the  -first 
christian  church' — but  an  addition  to  the  church. 
I  believe  tbot  Abel,  Enoch,  Paul  and  Peter,  were 
equally  members  of  the 'first  christian  church;'  a- 
g  iinst  which  assertion,  we  have  not  a  smgle  hint 
given  in  all  Divine  revelation. 

'Query — was  it  the  Jewish  nation,  or  Hhe  first 
'church  of  Christ  converted  in  Jerusalem,  to 
'  which  the  Lord  added  such  as  should  be  saved?' 
Page  42.  Mr.  C.  grants,  very  properly,  that  it  could 
not  be  the  nation;  and  mast  therefore  be  the  first 
Christian  church.  This?  was  in  the -first  place, 
useless;  because  that  every  one  who  can  read  the 


28  BAPTISM. 

scriptures,  knows,  that  the  first  New  testament 
believers  were  Jews,  of  course  could  not  be  ad- 
ded to  the  nation.  That  they  were  added  to  the 
lirst  Christian  church,  is  true,  if  bj  the  first  Cliris- 
tian  church  is  meant  that  precise  church,  to  whiclif 
Abraham,  Moses  and  Paul  belonged — and  that 
there  is  another  first  or  second  church,  is  the 
thing  to  be  proved. 

The  Jews,  like  other  nations  wiicre  the  gos- 
pel is,  had  a  twofold  relation  to  God;  as  a  nation 
and  as  a  church — but  these  relations  were  as  dis- 
tinct in  their  nature,  then,  as  they  are  now.  As 
a  nation,  they  had  privileges,  which  nations  under 
tlie  Nev\'.testament  have  not.  God  was  their  only 
lawgiver,  and  governed  them  by  positive  laws,  re- 
vealed for  that  special  purpose — and  chose  their 
kings  by  particular  appointment:  hence  tlieir  gov- 
ernment was  theocratical.  They  were  also  privi- 
leged with  being  a  nation,  professing  the  true  re- 
ligion; which  profession  they  were  bound  to  make, 
by  positive  law.  They  were  a  nation  of  professors. 

But  distinct  from  this,  they  were  the  church  of 
Christ.  And  although  these  relations  were  distinct, 
they  met  in  the  same  person.  A  simple  statement 
of  the  truth  will  enable  Mr.  C.  to  understand  if,  at 
least  almost  any  other  person  may.  As  the  mem- 
bers of  a  nation,  even  baptists  will  elect  officers, 
take  civil  offices,  collect  debts,  make  contracts, 
&c.  The  same  persons  as  members  of  the  church, 
will  go  to  sermon,  take  the  sacrament,  engage  in 
religious  duty,  &.C.  To  understand  this,  you  will 
comprehend  our  assertion,  that  the  Jews  were  both 
a  ^nation  and  a  church.  A  naiion  receives  ad- 
dition, by  births,  longevity  &lc.  A  church  re- 
ceives addition  by  conversions,  accessions  &c. 
'Seth,  Abraham,  and  Timothy,  were    members  of 


BAPTISM.  2S 

the  saire'church,  although  of  disUnct  nations.  In 
Christ  Jesus  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek.  The 
privileges  of  the  Old  testament  paints,  prove  their 
character  as  a  church.  They  all  professed  to  re- 
ceive eternal  life,  by  sacrifice.  This  they  declar- 
ed by  the  continual  sacrifices  they  offered:  which 
could  not  have  any  meaning,  but  a  typical  repre- 
sentation of  the  blood  of  Jesus.  The  particular 
efficacy  which  that  sacrifice  now  has,  was  tauii;ht 
them  both  by  the  flesh  they  eat,  &  the  blood  that  was 
sprinkled  upon  them.  Compare  Exod.  24,  with 
Heb.  3.  From  which  it  is  evident  tha:t  blood  le- 
gally offered  in  any  age  of  the  world  was  typically 
the  redemption  of  the  person  offering. 

This  blood  was  either  typically  or  really  offered 
— the  church  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  did 
the  former,  and  Christ  himself  the  latter.  The 
.Jews  acknowledged  by  this,  that  in  all  ages  of 
the  world  saints  met  in  Christ  Jesu^,  and  had 
communion  in  his  blood.  This  doctrine  is  mate- 
rially conceded  by  Mr.  C.  Ho  grants  that  David, 
Samuel,  Isaac  &c.  were  saints.  Page  44.  But  when 
a  number  of  these  saiiils,  under  the  Old  testament 
collected  for  religious  purposes,  had  dedicated 
themselves  to  God,  and  pledged  themselves  indi- 
vidually and  as  a  body  united,  to  walk  'in. the  law 
of  the  Lord,  and  keep  his  commandments,'  why 
will  Mr.  C.  refuse  to  have  them  called  by  the 
name  ddesial — a  church  called  out  of  the  world. 
But  in  every  age  oftheworid,  such  a  collection 
was  found  united  to  God  and  to  one  aj^other — 
therefore  in  every  age  of  th»  world  there  has  been 
a  chruch. 

It  is  conceded  that  this  body,  under  the  present 
dispensation,  possesses   more  privileges   than   in 
former  periods;  yet  the  idenily  of  the  body,  is  the 
D  2 


30  BAPTISM. 

same.  A  saii'.t  may  have  more  enjoyment  today 
than  iie  had  ycsicfd-ij',  but  he  remains  the  same 
person.  If  the  doctrirte  of  Mr.  C.  be  true,  the 
church,  in  the  time  of  the  heathen,  persecutions, 
was  a  distinct  body  from  that  church  in  the  reign 
cf  Cjnslantine;  nay  we  have  had,  gpon  the 
same  principle,  more  than  a  thousand  distinct 
churches  since  tlie  commencement  of  the  New- 
lestameiit  dispensation.  She  has  had  at  least  so 
many  changes  in  lier  historj'. 

Mr,  C.  objects  to  an  argument  Mr.  W.  had 
given  on  Rom,  11.  17.  18.  'And  if  some  of  the 
branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou,  being  a  wild 
olive  tree,  wert  jj;raffed  in  among  them,  and  with 
ihem  pajrtakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  Olive- 
tree,  boast  not  acjainst  the  branches.'  He  declares 
the  comment  of  Mr.  W.  to  be  contrary  to  the  scope 
of  tiie  passage,  and  the  intention  of  the  writer — r- 
'  v/hich  was  to  show  that  God  had  not  cast  away, 
'  a!id  tinallj  rejected  his  Jewish  people*  although 
*a  great  majority  of  them  was  cast  away.'     P.  26. 

I  reply,  that  when  any  writer,  intends  to  esta- 
bhsh  a  leading  principle,  he  mostly  travels  to  that 
end  by  a  series  of  arguments.  But  it  does  no  in- 
justice to  the  writer,  to  reason,  either  from  the  po- 
sition he  intended  to  prove  or  any  intermediate  ar- 
gument; because,  no  honest   writer  will  prove  a 

^Rejection  'of  his  Jewish  people*  could  mean 
no  more  with  Mr.  C.than  the  rejection  of  Tyre — 
Babylon,  Greece,  &c.  Because  *his  Jewish  peo- 
ple' had  only  the  same  kind  of  relation. — There 
are  only  the  two  relations;  church  and  national. 
Mr.  C.  says  they  had  not  the  first— all  then  that  is 
left  for  them  is  the  second,  Reader,  judge  £or 
yourself. 


.     BAPTISM.  31 

position,  from  false  principles:  this  is  true  of  all 
souiid  book?,  at  d  is  beyond  all  dispute,  when  we 
speak  of  divine  revelation.  Suppo.-e  the  Apos'le 
had  this  irencral  obj'  ct  in  view,  «hicli  Mr.  C.  ?f<y8 
— lliere  is  no  injustice  done.  This  is  one  of  Mr. 
C's  logical  prcofs — he  liostens  the  reader  beyond 
the  aposiles  arguments,  to  something — he  calls 
tKe  "Apostle^  intention' — lest  his  reader  might 
pause,  and  view  the  process  of  divine  argument, 
by  which  the  apostle  came  io  his  coi'clusion. 

The  whole  sclieme  of  Mr,  C.  on  tl;e  passage  is 
false  reasoning.  I  observe  that  next  to  divine  sov- 
renity,  the  humility  of  tl'e  New  testament 
church,  is  the  'Apostles  intention.'  Read  his  con- 
clusion, V.  20.  'Well:  because  of  utibelicf  they 
were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith.  Be 
not  high  minded,  but  fear.'  The  Apostle  thus 
reasoned.  The  Old  testament  church  was  unit- 
ed to  Christ  the  Head,  and  had  received  all  the 
ordinances  of  the  gospel — yet  by  its  apostacy 
had  lost  its  standing — its  rotten  branches 
were  cut  off  by  Christ;  some  few  branches  re- 
mained, among  which  wfre  grafted  in  members 
of  other  nations — grafted  into  the  same  stock, 
partaking  of  the  same  nourishment.  You  must 
take  care 'lest,  by  apostacv,  you  in  turn,  be  cut 
off. 

This  tree  bad  taken  root  in  the  covenant  of 
grace;  it  was  planted  nigli  a  rivci ;  it  was  watered 
every  momeiit.  The  head  of  the  church  had  of- 
ten cut  ctf  its  fruitless  biar  che? — his  servants 
h5?d  dug  about  it.  Notwithstanding  of  all  that  had- 
been  done,  about  the  time  that  Christ  paid  her  a 
personal  visit, this  tree  bore  little  else  than  leaves; 
its  fruitful  branches  were  few;  now,  acc(!rdiog 
to  the  decree  of  reprobation,  Christ  broke  off  all 


32  BAPTISM. 

the  fruitless  branches,  and  in  their  room  graft- 
ed in  Heathens:  not  into  another  stock,  (as  Mr. 
C.  would  have  you  believe,)  but  annongst  the 
br-nches  that  were  left  standi ngf.  The  few  saints 
that  Christ  found  on  earth  when  he  came,  were 
living  branches — they  were  ready  to  receive 
him — the  faith  of  their  fathers  looked  forward  to 
the  happy  period — 'Abraham  saw  his  day  afar  off 
and  was  glad.'  'Moses,  Samuel,  David,  &,c.' 
Were  branches  of  this  tree,  as  were  all  the  saints 
before  and  since  the  coming  of  Christ.  The  only 
difference,  stated  by  the  Apostle  is,  that  the  saints 
under  the  Old  testament  were  the  natural  branch- 
es, while  sinners  called  from  other  nations,  were 
inserted  into  the  same  tree  by  grafting. 

Mr.  C,  afraid  of  those  inferences  which  com- 
mon sense  would    draw,   endeavours   to  patch  his 

defective  system 'The  good  olive  tree,  was  the 

'Jewish  nation;  the  natural  branches  denote  the 
'  Jews;  and  grafting  expresses  union  by  faith  to 
'Jesus  Christ,  the  life  giving  root"'— Well  aware 
that  some  might  object  to  this  novel  theory,  he 
'  anticipates  this.  'Some  may  object  to  my  applying 
'  the  same  metaphor,  a  good  Olive  tree;  both  to 
'the  Jewish  state  and  christian  cl\urch.'  P.  29. 
I  acknowlege  myself  one  of  the  objectors;  and  I 
think  for  a  very  good  reason, — Because,  the  theo- 
ry destroys  the  metaphor.  While  the  apostle 
uses  the  figure  'good  Olive  tree,'  and  applies  th6 
same  to  the  church,  1  cannot  tell  by  what  autho- 
rity Mr.  C,  changes  its  very  nature  and  applies  it 
to  the  nation  of  the  Jews.  The  'olive  tree'  must 
therefore,  mean  two  things,  in  tlieir  nature  en- 
tlvfly  distinct.  I  shall  now  for  a  moment  reason 
on  Mr.  C's  plan.  The  good  olive  tree  in  the  llth. 
of  Rom.   means  the  lewish  nation;  this  natjon  be,- 


BAPTISM.  33 

came  apostate,  profane  &c.  In  process  of  time, 
God  cut  off  the  Jewish  branches,  and  instead  there- 
of inserted,  by  grafting,  the  heathen  converts — 
and,  as  the  stock  was  national,  and  all  its  living 
circulation  national,  the  branches  inserted  into 
this  stock,  of  course,  were  made  members  of 
the  Jewish  nation — and  therefore  all  christians 
are  Jews,  bound  by  all  the  Judicial  laws.  A  man 
who  gathers  a  burden  of  sticks  on  the  sabbath  day, 
must  'be  stoned  to  death.'  Christianity  has  been 
a  great  increase  to  the  Jewish  nation.  But  to 
rid  himself  of  this  very  natural  conclusion,  speak- 
ing of  his  own  comments,  he  says — 'This  only 
'shows,  that  either  in  a  different  sense,  or  in  a 
'  higher  sense,  the  same  words  may  be  used.  For 
'  instance,  a  man's  children,  his  lands  and  his  live 
'stock,  are  called  his  property;  now  it  is  obvious 
'  that  they  are  not  all  his  property  in  the  same 
sense.'  Let  this  be  granted;  yet  Mr.  C.  is  not 
delivered  from  the  dilemma.  Because  every 
man's  children  are  his  own  in  the  same 
sense — his  lands,  his  live  stock  in  the  same  sense. 
If  a  man  having  children,  lands,  live  stock,  &:c. 
would  in  consequence  of  the  death  of  a  child, 
adopt  the  child  of  a  stranger,  he  would  not  in- 
graft it  amQng  his  live  stock,  as  Mr.  C.  supposes, 
but  among  his  children,  the  child  would  not  be 
any  addition  to  his  live  stock,  or  his  lands,  but  to 
his  children.  The  Apostle  speaks  of  but  one 
olive  tree,  and  ot  the  branchesof  the  same  tree: 
but  the  ingrafted  branches  received  the  same  sap 
and  nourishment  which  those  branches,  belong- 
ing to  the  tree,  received  when  they  stood.  The 
escape  which  Mr.  C.'  tries  to  make,  will  not  do 
with  relider^  wlio  pos^sess  common  sense — no  per- 
son will  believe  Mr.  C.  that  we  are  engrafted  into 


34  BAPTlSiM, 

the  Jewish  nation or,  in  other  words,  that  we 

are  now  Jews. 

In  a  word,  Mr.  C.  all  you  have  established  by 
every  turn  you  take,  is,  that  the  church  un- 
derwent all  the  change  by  the  introduction  of  the 
New  testament  dispensation,  that  a  tree  would 
undergo,  that  lost  some  of  its  branches  by^  the 
knife  of  the  gardener,  and  had  others  ingrafted  in 
their  room.  Yet  ask  a  child  and  he  will  tell  you, 
the  tree  is  the  same. 

Mr.  C.  makes  an  attempt  to  state  the  relation, 
between  Christ  and  the  Jews.  'Jesus  Chi-ist  was 
their  relative  according  to  the  flesh.''  'He  came 
'  unto  his  own  (by  nation)  and  his  own  received 
'  him  not.'  That  Christ  was  their  relation  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  is  not  denied — but  the  question 
is,  had  he  any  other  than  a  natural,  or  national  re- 
lation? However,  in  the  same  place  Mr.  C.  grants 
*  he  was  federally,  or  by  covenant  their  King.' P. 
30.  These  expressions  are  not  so  improper,  did 
Mr.  C.  not  undeceive  the  reader  by  letting  him 
know,  that  by  Christ  bting  'federally  and  by  cove- 
nant their  king,  he  means  so,  in  a 'natural  or  na- 
tional sense' — or  in  plain  terms  he  was  their  ci- 
vil king;  for,  if  he  was  their  king  only  in  a  natural 
or  national  sense,  then  this  proposition  must  be 
true,  that  Christ  Jtsus  was  the  civil  king  of  the 
Jews — He  was  t' eir  temporal  king.  The  Jew? 
have  not  been  so  much  deceived  in  their  expec- 
tations, as  people  have  generally  imagin»-d — ' 
tliey  expr.cled  a  temporal  king — Mr.  C.  says,  this 
Wiis  his  character.  An  individual  Jt'W  who  held 
the  same  opinion  of  Christ  vvith  Mr.  C.  asked  him 
to  obtain  lh«^  division  of  an  inheritance  tie  found, 
ho\^eve^,  he  was  mistaken;  Christ's  re\Ay  vras, 
'man  who  made  me  a  judsei^'  Luke  12.  14. 


BAPTISM.  35 

We  say  that  Christ  was  the  alone  king  of  the 
church — 'He  was  set  my  king  upon  the  holy  hill 
of  Zion' Psalm  2.  6.  In  every  age  of  the  world 
he  held  this  ojfice  without  variation.  'Jesus 
Christ,  the  same  yesterday  and  to  day  and  forever' 
Heb.  13.  8.  Moses  was  king  in  Jeshurun — yet 
he  was  but  a  servant  under  Christ.  Heb.  3.  5. 
'and  Moses  verily  was  faithful  in  all  his  house  as 
a  servant,'  v.  6.  But  Christ  as  a  son  over  his  own 
house.'  Mr.  C.  will  reply  that  it  was  a  national 
house  over  which  Moses  was  a  servant,  and  a  New 
testament  house  over  which  Christ  was  a  son. 
This  cavil  may  be  ended  by  a  few  observa- 
tions. 

1st.  The  place  on  which  Paul  founds,  his  as- 
sertion respecting  Christ,  is  evidently,  Psal.  2,  G, 
7,  which  can  only  respect  Christ's  eternal  appoint- 
ment, as  well  as  his  eternal  sonship.  The  cliurch 
under  the  Old  testament,  is  frequently  named 
from  the  hill  on  whir.h  the  house  of  God  stood, 
Zion.  But  Christ  at  the  time  David  penned  that 
Psalm,  was  a  son  over  that  house.  The  apostle  tells 
us  that  all  New  testament  saints  belonged  to  the 
same  house  over  which  Christ  was  a  son — read 
the  verse.  'But  Christ  as  a  son  over  his  own  house, 
whose  house  are  we,  if  we  hold  fast  the  Confi- 
dence: and  the  rejoicing  of  the  hope,  firm  unto  the 
end.' 

2ndly.  The  position  proposed  to  he  proved  by 
the  apostle  was,  that  Christ  was  superior  to  Moses. 
But  if  he  spoke  of  two  separate  kingdoms,  and  con- 
trasted their  officers,  it  was  impossible  to  prove 
the  thing  intended;  and  if  he  had  gained  the  point, 
it  would  prove  this,  that  as  Christ  was  the  king 
of  the  church,  he  was  greater  than  Moses  or  any 
other  general  that  leads   armies.     The  powers  of 


36  B.Ai^TlSM- 

the  church  and  of  the  state  are   so  verr  different, 
that  no  suchxoTitrast  could  be  made. 

ordljr.  In  whose  house  was  Moses  a  strrant? 
I:  was  not  his  own  property,  he  was  only  a  'ser' 
van;* — The  house  must  even  by  Mr.  C's  acknow- 
ledjmentjhave  been  Cirist's — I  conclude  there- 
fore, that  the  house  over  which  Moses  was  a  ser- 
vant.was  the  same  ever  which  C  hrist  was  a  son. 
j^ut  Paul  states  that  this  house  is  the  one  to  which 
believers,  under  the  New  testan-ert,  belonged 
Heb.  3.  6. 

The  authority  king  David  or  any  olrier  Jewish 
king  exercised  in  the  church,  was  distinct  in  its 
nature  and  est rc'se  from  that  authority  they  ex- 
ercised in  the  Jewish  state — thi«  power  in  the 
church  was  held  from  Christ  as  *set  kir^  over 
the  holy  hill  of  Zion' — In  this  sense  Christ  Is  said 
to  be  the  Root  and  offspring  of  David-  Mr.  C's 
theory,  will  in  some  manner,  account  lor  his  being 
the  offspring  of  David — bit  in  no  sense  account? 
for  his  being  the  Root  of  David. 

Mr.  C.  will  however,  end  the  matter  by  one  fin- 
ishing stroke — 'Thou  siadest  by  faiih,  is  \he  sole 
'  cause  of  union  to  the  good  olive,  and  the  onh 
means  of  participation  in  its  roots  and  fat- 
•  ness,  assigned  by  the  apostle:  and  at  'one  stroke 
'  cuts  off  the  whole  system  which  mv  opponent  in- 
'  deavojs  to  prove  from  this  chapter^*  page  30, 31. 
— I  reply  that  'thou  standest  by  faith —was  as 
really  the  mode  of  the  standing  of  61^,  as  New  tes- 
tament saints.  We  are  certain  this  was  the  mind 
ofihe  apostle  Paul  in  Heb.  11 — where  he   men- 

*  To  Mr  C's  plan  of  using  this  argument  against 
infant  Baptism,  or  the  church  membership  of  in- 
fants. I  shall  afterwards  attend. 


BAPTISM.  37 

iions  a  considerable  nunaber  of  tbe  Old  testament 
branches,  remarkable  for  this  verv  faith  of  which 
Mr.  C.  speaks. 

The  passage  quoted  by  Mr  C.  proves  the  same 
doctrine;  Rom.  11.  20.  'Well; because  of  unbelief 
they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith, 
be  not  high  minded  but  fear' — Any  just  interpre- 
ter would  give  this  paraphrase,  unless  it  would 
be  the  death  of  some  favorite  system:  Gentile  con- 
verts, be  humble,  you  only  stand  by  faith  as*mem- 
bers  of  the  church — the  Jews  once  stood  as  you 
now  do,  but  refusing  credit  to  the  everlasting 
gospel,  were  broken  off.  But  I  would  ask  Mr.  C. 
if  unbelief  be  not  the  contrary  of  faith;  if  faith  be 
the  uniting  principle,  then  unbelief  must  be  that 
which  disunites.  The  church  now  stands  united 
to  Christ  by  faith — query,  cannot  many  of  her 
professed  members  be  broken  off  by  unbelief? 
what  was  the  end  of  the  seven  churches  of  Asia? 
they,  like  us,  once  stood  by  faith — do  they  nov/ 
so  stand?  no;  these  branches  are  now  broken  off, 
because  of  unbelief.  Indeed,  commoti  sense  will 
say,  that  the  branches  which  are  grafted  in  instead 
of  those  broken  off,  stand  m  the  same  sense  united 
to  the  tree,  those  did  which  were  broken  off — in 
their  turn  may  be  broken  off  in  the  same  manner. 

But  the  same  doctrine  is  established  by  the  a- 
postle  in  the  same  chapter.  Tbe  return  ot  the 
Jews,  in  the  glory  of  the  latter  day,  shall  be  their 
return  to  the  same  relation  they  formerly  occupie 
ed,  before  they  were  broken  off.  They  were  cast 
away — From  what? — Their  national  standing, 
says  Mr.  C.  No — for  this  was  in  reality  no  loss — 
they  might  have  had  more  civil  liberty  and  inde- 
pendence as  Roman  citizens,than  they  had  enjoy- 
ed for  many  centuries.  This  could  be  no  great 
E 


38  BAPTISM. 

evil.  But  the  truth  is,  they  were  cast  away  from 
their  relation  to  the  church,  v.  19.  'For  if  the 
casting  away  of  them  ba  the  reconciUng  ot  the 
world,  what  shall  the  reconciling  ot  them  be, 
but  life  from  the  dead?'  Their  casting  away,  im- 
plies their  loss  of  their  church  state,  and  all  their 
consequent  privileges:  but  the  receiving  of  them, 
their  happy  return  to  the  same  relation  they  for- 
merly had,  and  to  much  greater  privileges  than 
they  ever  enjoyed;  therefore  called  'their  fulness' 
V.  12. 

The  reader  will  do  well  to  attend  to  the  last 
clause  of  v.  15 — 'life  from  the  dead' — In  the  same 
moral  sense  in  which  people  die,  they  shall  arise. 
Mr.  C's  theoi^  is,  they  died  as  a  nation;  they  will 
arise  a  church:  or  systematically — they  died  as 
a  nation,  they  will  arise  as  a  nation.  They  were 
cast  away  as  a  nation— their  reconciling  will  be 
the  life  of  a  nation  from  the  dead — tliat  is,  we 
will  have  anew  nation,  recorded  on  our  maps,  that 
have  been  blotted  out  for  more  than  eighteen 
hundred  years.  Ministers  or  members  of  the 
church,  is  this  your  meaning  when  you  pray  for 
the  return  of  the  Jews ! !! 

But  the  word  ^recanciUng^  used  in  the  passage 
quoted,  also  proves  the  same  position.  When  a 
friend  is  offended  with  us,  means  are  used  to  re- 
concile him;  when  he  is  reconciled,  he  is  only 
brought  back  to  his  former  standing.  The  Jews 
were  once,  the  friends  of  God — they  were  offended 
at  Christ — he  is  called  'a  stone  of  stumbling  and 
a  rock  of  offence' — 'the  reconciling  of  them'  will 
be  their  restoration  to  their  former  state  of  friend- 
ship. 

Mr.  C.  calls  our  serious  attention  to  three  deci- 
sive considerations,  on  this  subject,  page  27.    *I 


BAPTISM.  59 

*  do  seriously  entreat  all  Pedo  Baptists  to  consider 
'  these  three  facts.  They  are  plain  and  decisive. 
'  The  whole  New  testament  is  predicated  upon 
'them.  The  first  of  them  viz.  That  the  Jews 
'  were  cast  away  and  rejected,  as  being  the  peo- 
'  pie  of  God*  on  those  peculiar  accounts  which 
'  designated  them  'his  people,'  made  way  for  re- 
'  conciling  the  world,  become  'the  riches  of 
'  the  Gentiles,'  and  introduced  a  new  era  in  the 
'  world;  the  constitutionof  a  new  state  of  things.' 

We  shall  reply  to  the  separate  items  of  this  'se- 
rious fact.'  That  they  were  cast  away  and  reject- 
ed as  a  nation,  is  true.  That  this  is  a  fact  as 
they  were  the  people  of  God,  is  also  true. 
But  it  is  eqtially  true  that  they  shall  again  be  col- 
lected together  as  his  people — This  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  chapter  from  which  we  reason.  2ndly,  made 
'  way  for  the  reconciling  of  the  world.'  This  is 
true.  Thev,  as  a  church,  were  ii;  covenant  with 
Christ;  but  this  in  a  great  measure,  was  confined 
to  their  nation.  In  the  Providence  of  God,  their 
nation  must  lose  its  character,  &  its  members  their 
church  standing,  to  make  room  tor  the  Gentile 
world,  Srdly.  'To  introduce  a  new  era  in  the  world' 
-I  jjuppose  Mr.  C.  means  the  commencement  of  the 
christian  era,  1833  years  ago — no  christian   will 

*  What  doe.*  Mr.  C.  mean  by  calling  them  -the 
people  of  God?'  He  will  do  well  in  his  next  hook^ 
to  distinguish  between  'the  people  of  God'  and  tiie 
ciiurch —  either  they  must  have  been  his  people, 
as  ottier  nations  were,  or  his  people  as  separated 
from  others — i.  e.  eklesia,  called  out  from  other  na- 
tions. He  Will  then  Sdti«fy  Mr.  Ralston  8fc.  Mr, 
W.  on  his  assertion  that  the  church  of  God  and  of 
Christ  is  not  the  same. 


40  B.\PTI5M. 

object.  4tblj.  'The  constitution  of  a  new  state  of 
things" — IJ  bj  this,  he  means  the  cbaoge  of  the  out- 
ward dispensation  of  grace,  an  increase  of  privile- 
ges he  will  siill  do 

His  first  fact  has  done  nothing  for  his  theorv — 
the  change  ha=  not  affected  the  identity  of  the  body, 
or  contradicted  an>  position  we  have  been  esJab- 
lishing. 

Let  us  hear  his  2ad.  decisive  fact,  pege  27,  28, 

•  That  the  remnant,  according  to  the  election  of 
'  grace,' cwilmuei  not  in  the  former  state  of  the  Jew- 
'  ;sh  rctson;  but  becorxje  the  people  of  GTod  in  a 
'  spiritual   and  everlasting  relation,  is  essentially 

•  distinct  from  their  forn-er  state;  is  the  accom- 
'  plishment  of  raanv  promises  and  prophecies  ia 
'the    Old  testament,  and    filJy   characterizes  the 

•  christian  church,  'the  kingdom  of  Heaven,*  in 
'  comparison  of  the  'worldly  sanctuary;''  the  'Car- 
'  nal  commandments'  and  the  'beggarly  elements  oi 
'  the  Jewish  stale.'  Let  us  examine  this  'fact*  in 
its  full  force.  Ist.  'That  t'.c  remnant,  according 
lO  'the  election  of  grace,"  jcc.  Those  who  did  not 
believe,  continued  in  the  same  national  standing'* 
that  this  remnant  did — the  civil  power  of  the  Jews, 
at  that  time,  was  very  limiied:  the  sceptre 
had  departed  from  Judab,  in  a  great  measure, 
when  Herod  became  ther  governor.  But  the  rem- 
nant, according  totheeleclien  of  grace,  no  more 
refused  their  civil  subordination,  than  the  o-.her 
Jews  did.  Paul,  one  of  this  remnant,  acknow- 
lec^ged  theirpower,  long  after  he  was  attached  to 
the  rem.jar.t.  'I  wist  nut  brethren,  that  he  was 
the  HigL!  Priest:  for  it  is  written,  thou  sha^t  not 
sp'cak  evil  of  the  rultf  of  thy  people.'  acts  23.  5, 
Ti,at  it  was  nece=>arvin  order  t«>  become  one  of 
*h.s  remnant,  io  throw^  off  national  allegiance,  is  a 


BAPTISM.  41 

new  doctrine.  Thf>  heathen,  I  grant,  did  ur^e  it 
— even  the  Je^vs  pressed  this  upon  Christ,  that 
he  was  not  tho.  friend  of  Cfesar.  Mr.  C.  should 
not  have  revived  their  assertions.  The  apostles 
&  their  successors,  have  sufficiently  answered  these 
objections.  To  lose  'national  character,'  bv  re- 
ceiving the  character  of 'Christian.'  is  never  ne- 
cessary. The  friends  of  Christ  may  belong  to  both 
kingdoms — and,  as  far  as  is  consistent  with  the 
moral  law,  yield  obedience  to  both. 

If,  by  'loosing  their  national  character,'  Mr.  C. 
means  that  thej  were  willing  to  be  incorporated 
with  other  nations;  this  is  true;  because,  so  long  as 
the  administration  of  the  covenant  of  grace  and  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  was  confined  to  that  nation,  as 
a  necessary  precaution,  to  prevent  corruption — 
such  incorporation  was  forbidden — this  is  a  cir- 
cumstantial difference,  but  nothing  more. 

The  2nd  part  of  this  fact  is,  that 'this  remnant, 
*  in  a  spiritual  and  everlasting  relation,'  &c.  That 
every  sinner,  in  the  day  of  his  conversion,  whether 
Jew  or  Gentile, forms  anew  relation,  is  true.  If 
this  be  the  meaning  of  Mr.  C.  it  is  conceded.  But  if 
he  means  that  believers  under  the  New  testament, 
hold  any  distinct  relation  to  Christ,  from  that  re- 
lation which  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  and  all 
Old  testament  saints  had,  it  is  denied,  for  reasons 
already  given.  The  remaining  part  of  the  fact 
only  regards  the  distinction  of  privileges;  and, 
therefore,  affects  not  the  being  of  the  church.  It 
was,  indeed,  the  blessing  of  this  remnant  and  their 
successors  in  the  church,  to  be  delivered  from  the 
weak  and  beggarly  elenrients  of  the  Jewish  dispei%- 
sation — these  were  no  longer  necessary — Christ 
their  substance  was  come,  &  appeared  to  'put  away 
£  2 


42  BAPTISM. 

sinbv  the  iarr'fi  e  A^  oirr.  eif.'     What  is   decisive 
in  this  second  fact  for  Mr.  C? 

'The  third  -snd  'ast  of  these  three  viz.  that 
'Jews  and  Gpntiles  were,  to  i  mnn,  co'jcUided  in 
*  unbelief  in  relation  to  chri«tnnitv,  presents  the 
'  whoie  world  on  the  same  fooling,  Ir  oresenrs 
•Judaism  andGentilism,  as  both  dJ>tinc»  from  and 
*e-sentially  opposite  to  Christianity.'  P.  28.  All 
this  is  materially  true;  and  what  is"  thereby  made 
for  his  system?  Christianity,  I  arrant  knows  no 
national  distinction — Jr-w,  Gentile,  Barbarip.n, 
Scythian,  bond  or  free,  are  alike.  It  was  not  the 
will  of  the  He.-id  of  the  church  formerly,  to  extend 
it  to  other  nations;  but  from  any  thinaj  io  the  na- 
ture of  the  gospel,  it  never  knew  national  distinc- 
tion: before  the  time  of  Abraham,  it  was  not  con- 
fined to  any  particular  people;  and  even  after  that 
period,  until  the  coming  of  Christ,  without  respect 
of  nations,  some  converts  were  admitted,  which 
were  not  only  a  pledge  to  the  church  at  that  time, 
that  the  gospel  would  be  extende)!,  but  also  prov- 
ed that  the  nature  of  the  gospel,  as  then  adminis- 
tered, adraiited  of  subjects  from  other  nations.  1 
grant  that  Judaism,  after  the  death  of  Christ,  was, 
in  point  of  efficacv,  no  better  than  Gentilism;  but 
what  was  it  before  that  period?  this  is  the  ques- 
tion in  dispute.  Will  Mr.  C.  pretend  to  say  that 
the  religion  of  the  Jews,  befcfre  that  period,  was  no 
better  than  Gentilism?  If  he  did  not  intend  to 
prove  this,  I  cannot  understaDd  what  he  intended 
to  prove  by  this  last  assertion. 

Now  Het  all  Pedo-Baptists,'  according  to  Mr, 
C's.  request,  'seriously  consider  these  three  facts* 
— and,  when  done,  thev  will  believe  as  before. 

But  if  Mr.  W.  succeeded  in  proving  that  the 
Jews  were,  considered  as  a  people,  married  to  the 


BAPTISM.  43 

Lord,  he  has  made  notliint;;  for  this  relation  was 
actri;illy  di-solvec^  by  resrular  divorce — and  w-th 
that  divorce,  fell  the  J<  wish  c'lurrh.  Let  us 
hear  Mr.  C.  'As  a  nation,  I  have  alreud)  si  ewn 
'  the  J«:vvs  were  mrtrri^d  to  the  Lord,  ar-u,  ps  a  na- 
'  tion,  he  divorced  them.  He  ihen  formed  a  re- 
'  lation  more  close,  and  altogether  spiritual,  with 
'  a  remnant  of  the  Jews  aid  a  remnant  of  the 
'  Gentiles-i-which,  as  christians,  he  espoused  to 
*  himself.  It  is  not  true,  that  the  bride  is  the  same 
'  now  that  she  ever  was,  any  more,  than  it  is  not 
'  true,  that  the  christian  church  i'S  similar  to  the 
'Jews.  I  mast  refer  him  (viz.  Mr.  W.)  to  the 
'consideration  of  Jer.  3,  8.'  P,  64. 

The  marriage  of  Clirist  to  a  nation,  is  a  new 
thought — and  Mr.  C.  the  invf-ntor.  A  reader  ne- 
ver terrified  at  any  expression,  however  contrary 
to  scripture,  may  admit  it;  I  cannot.  The  term 
marriage,  when  used  figuratively,  is  only  used  to 
designate  intimate  relation.  I  believe  that  it  can- 
not be  said,  in  any  sound  sense,  that  Christ  is 
married  to  a  nation — or  is  it  a  fact  that  he  ever 
stood  more  intimately  related  to  one  nation  than 
to  another,  considered  as  a  nation.  It  was,  in- 
deed, the  alone  privilege  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
for  a  long  period  of  time,  to  have  tlie  church  with- 
in its  confines — It  is  all  the  privilege  of  BRITAIN 
and  AMERICA,  to  possess  the  church.  Yet  a 
national  character  to  the  Jews,  Britains  and 
Americas  was,  and  is  distinct  from  tiieir  church 
relation  to  Christ,  their  king  and  head.  Christ 
indeed  stood  related  to  many  of  the  Jewish  citi- 
zens, not  as  citizens,  b'lt  as  professing  believers. 
He  stood  externally  related  to  the  Jewish  nation; 
not  as  a  nation,  but  a>--  a  nat'on  of  professors  of 
the  true  religion.    We  have  the  positive  assertion 


44  BAPTISM. 

of  Christ  in  opposition  to  the  ^chen?e  of  Mr.  C. 
^My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world.'  John.  18.  SB. 
Mr.  C.  will  grant  that  a  nation,  considered  as 
such,  is  a  kingdom  of  this  world  And  if  Christ 
stood  related  to  the  Jews  as  a  civil  kingdom,  consid- 
ering them  as  the  :-pouse  and  him-elf  as  the  hus- 
band, hnw  could  HE  say,  'mj  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world.' 

The  very  passage  to  which  Mr.  C*  refers  his 
opponent,  Jer.  3.  8.  he  should  have  kepi  a  pro- 
found secret,  if  he  intended  to  establish  his  point. 
The  passage  contains  the  death  warrant  of  his 
system  respecting  the  church — The  truth  is,  there 
is  not  the  least  hint  in  the  passage,  of  Mr,  C's  the- 
ory, because  the  prophet  mentions  the  tribes  that 
were  cast  away,  as  distinct  from  the  tribe  of  Ju- 
dah,  with  whom  the  church  remained,  and  with 
whom  it  was  found  when  Christ  came.  Read 
Jer.  3.  8.  'and  I  saw,  when,  for  all  the  causes 
whereby  backsliding  Israel,  committed  adultery,  I 
had  put  her  away,  and  given  her  a  bill  of  divorce, 
yet  her  treacherous  sister  Judah  feared  not  but 
went  and  played  the  harlot  also.'  It  is  evident  to 
any  reader,  that  the  divorce  respected  'backslid- 
ing Israel'  and  not  'Judab.'  Before  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  wrote,  the  other  tribes  were  entirely  se- 
perated  from  the  chiarch,  never  to  be  reunited, 
until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentile  nations  would 
come.  With  respect  to  these,  the  word  divorce 
is  used,  and  is  a  very  strong  declaration  of  their 
doleful  state,  as  separated  and  as  broken  olT  from' 
the  church,  the  good  Olive  tree,  and  left  to  inter- 
mingle with  the  heathen  world,  and  learn  their 
ways.  Mr.  C.  makes  no  mention  of  this  fact  ib 
the  text;  but  actually  apj  lies  the  term  'Divorce,' 
to  the    whole    church.    But  perhaps,  he  nevesr 


BAPTISM.  45 

read  the  passage  with  care  himself.  The  conduct 
of  Judah  was  no  better  than  that  of  her  sister,  Is- 
rael; she  took  no  warning  by  all  the  Divine  Judg- 
ments Israel  had  received;  yet  God  declares,  that 
there  was  no  dissolution  of  the  relation,  between 
him  and  Judah,  (as  Mr.  C  would  have  it)  v.  14. 
'Turn,  O  backsliding  children,  saith  the  Lord,  for 
I  am  married  unto  you.'  Thus,  reader,  you  have 
found  the  premises  of  Mr.  C's  conclusion  in  his 
book,  but  not  in  the  BIBLE. 

This  doctrine  is  certainly  true,  that  a  believer 
may  commit  the  most  aggravated  sins — What  act 
of  prophanity  was  greater  than  Peter's?  what 
adultery  more  aggravated  than  David's,  or  what 
Idolatry  worse  than  Aaron's?  Yet  the  scripture 
gives  us  no  hint,  that  therefore,  the  relation  be- 
tween  them  and  Christ  was  dessolved.  The  con- 
duct of  Judah,  I  grant  was  no  better  than  the  con- 
duct of  Israel;  yet  he  refused  to  divorce  her,  but 
entreats  her  kindly  to  return,'  for  he  was  married 
to  her.* 

3rd.  'With  a  remnant  of  the  Jews  and  a  rem- 
*  nant  of  the  Gentiles  he  has  forn^ed  a  more  close 
and  spiritual  union.'  I  beseech  Mr.  C.  to  look  at 
this  again.  For  what  union  is  more  close  than 
the  union  of  tnnrriage?  'For  this  cause  shall  a 
man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  be 
joined  unto  his  wife,  and  they  two  shall  be  one 
flesh.  This  is  a  great  mystery  but" I -ipf-ak  con- 
cerning Christ  ind  the  church'  Eph.  5.  31.  32.  Of 

*Mr.  C's  reasonir.g  on  this  Divwxe,  savors  too 
much  of  a  wilful  sophism;  he  must  have  read  the 
pas.-Age — it  seems  impossible  he  could  havt  mis- 
take.'! its  mea.Hig — he  should  not  wilfully  mislead 
one  ignorant  reader. 


46  BAPTISM. 

whom  did  Paul  speak  in  this  place?  It  could  not 
be  of  New  testament  saints  only;  because  Je- 
remiah had  said,  that  the  Old  testament  church 
was  married  to  the  Lord;  and  Paul  declares  noth- 
ing more.  The  marriage  between  Christ  and  the 
church  is  so  intimate,  and  of  such  a  nature,  that 
it  does  not  admit  of  separation.  'I  will  betroth 
thee  unto  me  forever.'  Hosea  2.  19 — But  no  says 
Mr.  C.  'they  may  be  divorced' — 'finally  put  away.' 

5th.  But  this  union  of  tne  New  testament 
church  to  Christ  ,  is  not  only  more  close,  bu.  is  al- 
so as  distinct  from  the  union  of  the  Old  testament 
church — a  'spiritual  union.'  I  would  ask,  what 
was  the  union,  if  it  was  not  spiritual?  The  pro- 
mise of  Christ,  the  spiritual  seed,  was  given  to 
Abraham  in  uncircumcision,  as  the  apostle 
shews;  to  intimate  that  he  stood  the  father  of  the 
faithful,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles.  Does  Mr.  C. 
desire  the  reader  to  believe  this  proposition,  that 
the  Divine  Being,  was  united  to  the  Jews  by  a  car- 
nal relation?  He  seems  to  hold  this  doctrine,  by 
denying  that  the  relation  was  spiritual.  This  shall 
afterwards  be  discussed. 

We  shall  only  obfCjve  on  the  passage  quoted 
from  Mr.  C.  that  Mr.  W.  never  did  say,  or  even 
read  of  any  one  saying,  that  'the  christian  church 
IS  similar  to  the  Jews.'  He  said  the  Old  and 
New  testament  church  were  the  same.  If  they  be 
not,  Mr.  C,  has  not  given  us  any  reason,  sufficient 
to  make"  us  deny  the  assertion.  He  has,  indeed, 
with  eager  search,  discovered  a  great  change  of 
circumstances — a  great  ditfereoce  in  privilege, 
between  the  two  dispensations;  and  these  are  not 
denied.  But  all  his  arguments  are  insufficient  to 
make  us  believe  they  are  not  the  same.  No  per- 
son can  believe   his  system   of  relation,  until  he 


BAPTISM.  47 

proves,  that  a  woman,  when  married,  being  found 
ignorant,  weak,  sickly,  is  not  the  same  person 
twenty  years  afterwards,  when  her  husband  has 
instructed  her,  and  she  is  now  become  strong  and 
healthy. 

Mr.  C.  has  mustered  up  his  strong  facts,  to 
which,  even  scripture  metaphors  must  bow,  P.  28. 
stubborn  facts — but  after  investigation,  even  com- 
mon sense  refuses  to  bow.  He  creates  thousands 
of  neic  beings,  every  second;  by  his  system, 
every  change  in  circumstances  creates  new  beings 

but  these  new  creatures  are  all  the  product 

of  Mr.  C's  brain,  without  any  foundation,  or  even 
materials  upon  which  he  could  go  to  work — Yet 
he  has  made  one  neio  church,  five  new  covenants,-— 
one  new  Olive  tree,  which  he  calls  national — then 
all  the  new  arguments,  upon  which  he  builds  the 
new  system.  Thus  has  he  outstripped  the  pro- 
phets, the  apostle,  all  Divine  revelation  with  all 
his  predecessors. 

Before  I  leave  this  subject,  I  would  invite  the 
reader  to  review  Mr.  C's  system,  in  its  true  dress. 
And,  in  order  that  any  enquirer  may  judge  for 
himself,  I  shall  present  both  sides  of  the  propo- 
sitions now  discussed. 

Mr.  C.  I  grant  that  there  were  saints  under  the 
Old  testament. 

Mr.  W.  Yes  but  they  had  no  place  of  residence: 
no  house  of  God;  no  church:  further  than  mob- 
assemblies,  civil  meetings.* 

g  •  Mr.  C.  seems  to  grant  in  his  strictures  publish- 
ed against  Mr.  Ralston,  that  there  vras  a  church 
under  the  Old  testament.  But  Mr.  R.  or  Mr.  W. 
knew  of  but  one  church,  and  that  the  church  of 
Christ — but  Mr.  C.  never  granted  that  the  Jews 


48  BAPTISM. 

Mr.  C.  Believers,  under  the  Old  testament,  held 
comrnunion  uith  God — but  had  do  communion 
with  ore  another,  because  ihev  did  not  exist  in  a 
church  state. 

Mr.  W.  The  church  of  Christ  received  its  first 
gospel  address  in  the  garden,  in  the  cool  of  the  day 
— that  by  this  Divine  sermon  and  those  which  im- 
mediately followed,  a  church  was  formed — that 
Noah,  Aaron,  and  Paul,  were  preachers  of  the 
same  church — existed  in  a  church  state — held 
communion  with  Christ — and  with  the  saints  of 
their  age. 

Mr.  C.  People  under  the  Old  testament,  attend- 
ed sermon,  as  a  nation — as  citizens  they  prayed, 
they  praised — their  religion  consisted  in  a  collec- 
tion of  civil  rites.  The  ceremonial  law  was  a  civ- 
il law,  all  its  purifications  were  only  for  the  pur- 
pose cf  cleansing  them  as  citizens — "When  they 
did  not  properly  attend  to  these  civil  riles,  in  ta- ' 
king  a  civil  ordinance  called  the  Passover,  'Heze- 
kiah  prayed  for  them  and  they  were  healed." 

On  their  sabbath  days  'they  transacted  all  man- 
ner of  worldly  business  that  did  not  require  la- 
bor, because  they  bad  only  a  worldly,  a  natural 
existence — and,  of  course,  were  great  enemies 
to  moral  societies.  Their  sanctuary  was  only  call- 
ed a  worldly  sanctuary,  because  in  it  they  transac- 
ted worldly  business. 

Mr.  W.  the  ceremonial  law  was  the  gospel  of 

originally  belonged  to  that  church — yet  his  con- 
cession to  Mr.  R.  on  that  subject,  evinces  a  change 
of  mind  produced  either  from  a  conviction,  that 
be  had  taken  false  sround;  or,  what  is  more  pro- 
bable, he  became  afraid  that  the  reader  might  mis? 
take  him  for  an  infidel. 


BAPTISM.  49 

Christ,  given  in  a  legal  form,  had  Christ  crucified 
for  its  substance — mankind  sinners  for  the  per- 
sons   to  whom    it  was   addressed and  eternal 

salvation  for  an   important   object.     That    Christ 

never  had  but  one  spouse This  was  the  church , 

the  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife, 'my  dove,  my  undefiled 
is  but  one.'  This  spouse  was  composed  of  Old 
and  New  testament  members — Who  in  all  ages 
of  the  world,  associated  themselves  together  in  a 
body,  thus  called  the  church. 

Mr.  C.  That  the  nation  of  the  Jews  was  not  a 
church  I  csn  easily  prove — That  Christ  had  no 
church  at  that  time  is  equally  evident — but  what 
they  were,  I  cannot  tell,  or  even  yet  have  tried  to 
tell. 

Mr.  W.  It  is  easier  to  pull  down  than  to  build  up 
— Deists  have  pulled  down  the  New  testament 
church,  as  Mr.  C.  has  done  the  old;  but  they  or 
Mr.  C.  rever  attempied  to  establish  any  thing  up- 
on the  ruins  of  the  systems  they  have  attempted  lo 
destroy. 

Mr.  C.  maybe  unwilling  to  admit  the  preceed- 
ing  language  as  his  own — although  the  language 
be  not  his,  the  sentiments  are,  and  must  appear  so 
to  every  candid  reader.  Mr.  Ralston's  misrepre- 
sentations are  such  as  every  man  would  make  that 
would  read  it  attentively,  and  such  as  Mr.  C.  in- 
tended to  make;  hut,  when  stript  of  the  dreiS, 
and  unfleeced  of  their  wool,  Mr.  C,  became  ashaf : 
medofhisown  wolves. 


50  BAPTISM. 


1 1  PROPOSITION. 

That  God  never  did  enter  into  any  covenant 
with  fallen  man  but  the  covenant  of  grace,  which 
is  now,  and  ever  was,  the  alone  security  and  hope 
of  the  believer. 

This  covenant  is  defined  to  be  a  contract  made 
from  eternity,  between  God  the  father  and  God 
the  son;  wherein  God  the  son  did,  as  the  foederal 
head  and  representative  of  all  whom  the  Father 
gave  him,  agree  to  satisfy  ail  the  claims  of  the  law, 
and  thereby  fulfil  the  condition  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  and  bring  in  an  everlasting  righteousness. 

That  such  a  covenant  was  made,  is  evident. 
Psalm,  89,  3.  "I  have  made  a  covenant  with  my 
chosen."  That  it  was  an  everlasting  covenant, 
is  evident  from  Heb.  IS,  20.  Now,  the  God  of 
peace  that  brought  again  from  the  dead  our  Lord 
Jesus,  that  great  shepherd  of  the  sheep,  through 
the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant."  That 
Christ  was  a  public  person  in  that  covenant,  ap- 
pears from  Heb.  7.  22.  "By  so  much  was  Jesus 
made  a  surety  of  a  better  testament.-'  Fmally, 
that  Christ  agreed  in  that  eternal  contract  to  ful- 
fil the  condition  of  the  covenant  of  works,  and 
thereby  satisfv  all  the  claims  of  the  law,  is  proved 
from  Psalm  40,  6,  7,  8.  Sacrifice  and  oflFering 
thou  didst  not  desire:  mine  ears  hast  thou  opened: 
burnt  offering  and  sin  offering  hast  thou  not  re- 
quired. Then  said  I,  lo,  I  come:  in  the  volume  of 
the  book  it  is  written  of  me,  I  delight  to  do  thy  will 
O  my  God." 

But  the  denial  of  this  doctrine  constitutes  a 
great  part  of  Mr.  C's  work— he  has  been  more  in- 


BAPTISM.  ol 

ventive  in  the  formation  of  spurious  covenant?, 
than  the  Roman  Catliolicks  were  in  sacraments — 
tlicy  formed  three  spurious  sacraments,  but  Mr. 
C.  has  formed  in  his  own  brain,  five  new  cov- 
enants, which  he  adds  to  the  two  found  in  the 
scriptures,  making  seven.  It  indeed  lies  upon 
Mr.  C.  to  exert  all  his  genius  to  create  cov- 
enants; it  is  evident  that  circumcision  was  tl-.o 
seal  oi  some  covenant,  this  materially  is  not  deni- 
ed b"y  Mr.  C.  although  he  is  not  willing  to  go  so 
far,  as  Paul's  opinion  on  the  same  snbject.  But 
no  person  had  ever  asserted  that  circumcision 
was  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  works.  It  will  not 
do  for  the  system  of  Mr.  C.  to  make  it  a  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace;  and  therefore,  some  other  cov- 
enant must  be  made,  to  which  this  seal  can  be  ap- 
phed — ho  thinks  he  has  succeed'^d.  We  shall  en- 
deavour to  collect  his  observations  upon  the  sub- 
ject. 

'  With  regard  to  what  he  (Mr.  W.)  has  snid  con- 
'  cerninglhe  tvi'O  covenarits  being  the  same,  1  am 
'  authorised,  from  the  Old  testsment  and  the  i  ew, 
'  to  affirm  that  they  are  not."  "On  what  ground 
'  does  my  opponent  affirm  that  these  covenants  are 
'  the  same,  that  is,  what  he  calls  the  covenant  of 
'  grace,  or  I,  the  new  covenant,  and  the  covenant 
'  of  circumcision?  Do  we  not  read  that  there 
'  were  ditferent  covenants   made    with  Abraham? 

•  one  called  by  Stephen  the  proto-martyr  the   cov- 

•  enant  of  Circumcision  and  one  called  by  Paul, 
'  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  "The  cov- 
'  enant  conHrmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  whicli 
'  was  430  years  before  the  giving  of  the  law— - 
'Why  then  call  those  covenants  the  same,  the 
'  one  revealed  to  Abraham  when  75  year  old,  de- 

•  parting  from  Haran,  Gen.  12,  3.  430  years  be 


52  BAPTISM. 

*  fore  the  giving  of  the  law;  arrd  the  other  made 
'  with  Abraham  when  99  or  100  years  old  Gen.  17 

•  called    the    covenant    of    circumcision.'    Page 
'.13,  14.' 

As  to  the  date  of  his  two  covenants^  I  beg  leave 
to  differ  vfith  Mr.  C.  for  this  reason,  that  the  cov- 
eAant  mentioned  in  the  13th,  of  Genesis,  has  in- 
deed a  promise,  but  there  is  no  particular  men- 
tion made  of  an j  thing  then  instituted,  as  a  con- 
iirmation  of  that  covenant;  the  simple  specifica- 
tion of  the  terms  of  a  contract,  may  indeed  be  con- 
firmed by  the  veracity  of  the  contractors;  but  with- 
out a^seal  tlie  contract  may,besaid  tobe  legally  con- 
(irtned;  but  until  the  mslitution  of  circumcision  we 
liave  no  particular  specification  of  a  seal,  or  con- 
firmation of  a  covenant.  The  calculation  of  Mr. 
David  Pare  us,  wliose  cliaracter  for  accuracy  will 
be  disputed  by  none  except  Mr.  C.  before  whom 
John  Knox,  justly  stiled  the  Apostle  of  the  refor- 
mation— or  even  Paul  the  great  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, fall  with  the  least  exertion  of  Mr.  C's  potent 
arm.* 

He  commences  his  calculations  not  as  Mr.  C. 
does  from  the  12th  of  Gen.  but  the  15th.  From 
this  event  to  the  birth  of  Isaac  15  years.  From 
the  birth  of  Isaac  to  the  birth  of  Jacob,  60  years, 
Gen.  25,  2G  from  the  birth  of  Jacob,  to  his  going 
down  into  Egypt  130  years,  Gen  47, 9.     From  his 


*  When  Mr.  C.  is  passing  strictures  on  Mr.  R. 
the  father  of  the  reformation,  gets  their  equal 
share  of  his  'wonder  working'  pen.  In  this  re- 
spect how  keenly  he  unites  with  the  Papists  in 
the  ruin  of  these  good  men.  It  must  he  a  pitiful 
system  before  which  even  the  reformation  must 
fall.  Mr.  C.  Inolhi  seautmi  to  know  thyself. 


BAPTISM.  53 

going  clown  into  Egypt,  to  bis  death  17  years.  Gen. 
4T,  28.  From  the  death  of  Jacob  to  the  death  of 
Joseph  53  years.  Gen  50,  26.  From  the  death  of 
Joseph  to  the  birth  of  Moses  75  years.  From  the 
birth  of  Moses  to  the  going  out  of  the  children  of 
Israel*  from  Egypt  80  years.  In  all  430  years. 
The  time  mentioned  by  the  apostle  Paul.  The 
accuracy  of  this  calculation  will  appear  upon  par^i 
ticular  observation,  and  completely  justifies  the 
opinion  of  dating  the  time  from  the  prophecy  in 
Gen.  Chap.  15.  This  covenant  in  that  particular 
revelation  was  confirmed  by  sacrifice;  to  wliich 
we  shall  attend  in  its  proper  place. 

But  Mr.  C.  is  'authorized  from  the  Old  testament 
and  the  new-  to  declare  that  the  covenant  made 
before  the  birth  of  Isaac,  and  the  covenant  made 
at  the  institution  of  circumcision,  were  distinct 
covenants.  In  replying  to  Mr.  C.  I  caie  not  whe- 
ther he  selects  for  his  purpose,  the  covenant  he 
supposes  made  in  the  12  chap,  or  the  covenant 
mentioned  in  the  15th.  The  only  difference  it 
will  make,  is,  that  on  his  plan  of  forging  out  cov- 
enanants,  it  will  place  another  on  his  list,  making 
in  all,  eight. 

Let  us  grant,  that  a  covenant  was  made  in  the 
12th  chap,  of  Gen.  What  then  does  it  contain? 
1st  a  promise  'I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation, 
and  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing,  and  I  will  bless  them 
that  bless  thee,  and  curse  them  that  curseth  tiiee, 
and  in  thee  sha'!  all  families  of  the  earth  be  bless- 
ed' v.  2.  3.  and  again  v.  7,  unto  thy  seed  will  I 
give  this  land.  These  are  the  only  specifications  of 
a  covenant  in  12th  chapter.  The  five  following 
things  are  contained  in  these  verses.  1st,  That  he 
should  be  the  father  of  a  great  nation.  2nd.  That 
his  name  should  be  very  celebrated.  3rd.  That 
F  % 


54  BAPTISM. 

God  would  prefect  his  friend.^— and  curse  his  ene- 
raies.  4ih.-  That  a  blessing  through  liim  should 
eitend  toalifhe  familes  ofthe  earth,  oth.  That 
his  seed  should  inherit  the  lard  of  Canaan. 

Let   us  next  examine  Mr.    C's  .^elc  and  distinct 
covenant,  the  covenant  of  circumcision.     This   is 
mentioned   Gen.    Chap.   17.  This  contains  Ist.  a 
-pn.misc  that   his  family  should  be  erreat.     "I  will 
multiply  thee  exceedinnlv."     'I  will  make  nations 
cf  thee"  y.  2.  6.     2ndr"With  this  multiplied  pos- 
terify   he   would    make   an   everlasting  covenant. 
\,8.     3rd.  Circumcision  is  apointed  as  a  sign,  or 
seal  of  this  covenant.     But  Mr.  C.  asks  'why  does 
my  opponent  say  that  these  too  covenants  are  the 
same:'     I  answer,  because  they  contain  materially 
the  same  thing-.     Not  any  blessing  contained  in 
the  former   covenant,  but  is  either  expressed,    or 
implied  in  the  latter.  If  wt  were  in  persuitof  a  new 
covenant,  we   should  look  for  new  promises,  new 
stipulations— new   parties   S,-c. — but    not    finding 
these  Mr.  W.  was  compelled  to    pronounce  the 
covenant  of  the    12.  15.  and  17.   Chap,  the  same. 
If  Mr.  C.  had  possessed  a  genius  as  productive  of 
circumstances  and   principles  as  he  was  of  cove- 
nants, he  would  at  least  have  presented  his  read- 
ers with  a  sutficient  number  of  these   that  would 
have  inclined  him  to  think  that  these  were  distinct 
covenants. 

^Te  shall  however,  attend  to  some  of  Mr.  C^s 
reasons,  why  we  should  consider  the  covenants  of 
the  12.  and  15.  Chap,  as  distinct;  and  find  if  it  be 
possible  to  consider  the  sentiment  expressed  by 
Mr.  C.  correct.  I  would  just  premise  that  the  se- 
cond or  third,  or  any  number  of  the  revelations  of 
a  covenant  will  not  constitute  them  separate 
contracts.     This  alone  cac  be  inferred,  that  there 


BAPTISM.  55 

were  distinct  reasons,  why  such  repetitions  should 
be  made.  These  reasons  were  either  the  particular 
circumstances  of  the  person  to  vviiom  the  revela- 
tion was  made,  or  the  giving  of  some  additional 
revelation,  either  of  promise,  command,  or  threat- 
ing.  Not  to  concede  this  premise,  will,  at  least 
add  a  thousand  covenants  to  Mr.  C's  seven!  it 
will  add  hundreds  of  new  commands  to  the  com- 
mon list;  because  we  have  the  same  precepts  of- 
ten repeated,  according  to  Mr.  C's  plan,  every  re- 
petition of  the  same  command,  will  make  it  a  dis- 
tinct command.  The  truth  is,  the  same  covenant, 
the  same  command,  is  in  scripture  often  repeat- 
ed— and  every  repetition  was  mad<»  from  distinct 
reasons,  and  under  different  circumstanc*  s. 
Hence  the  reasons  given  by  Mr.  C.  for  distinct  co- 
venants have  nothing  to  do  with  the  being  of  the 
covenant,  they  only  respect  the  circumstances  be- 
longing to  it. 

'Do  we  not  read,  that  there  were  different  co- 
*  venants  made  with  Abraham.^  one  called  by 
'Stephen,  the  proto-Martyr,  the  covenant  of cir- 
'  cumcision,  and  one  called  by  Paul  in  his  epis- 
'  tie,  to  the  Galatians,  the  covenant  confirmed  of 
'God  in  Christ  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  be- 
'fore  the  giving  of  the  law'  P.  13.14.  That 
Stephen  and  Paul  give  diflferent  names  to  the  co- 
venant is  not  denied,  will  this,  however,  prove 
different  covenants.'*  If  two  writers  refering  to  a 
certain  contract,  cite  separate  items,  and  each 
designate  the  contract,  by  such  items,  would  Mr. 
C's  conclusion  be  just — that  therefore  there  must 
have  been  two  contracts.  The  name  given  by 
Paul,  (if  we  may  call  it  a  name:)  arose  from  a 
peculiar  circumstance,  that  it  .was  a  contract  be- 
tween God  and  the  Church,  concluded  and  con- 


56  BAPTISM. 

firmed  by  appending  a  seal  four  hundred  and  thir- 
ty -e'srs  before  the  revelation  of  the  law  from 
Mt  Sinai.  But  Stephen  speaking  of  the  same  co- 
venant, and  quoting  it  for  a  different  reason,  en- 
titles it  a  covenant  of  circumcision.  The  differ- 
ent reasons,  these  inspired  pen-men  had,  for  refer- 
ing  to  this  covenant,  of  course  give  the  different 
names  to  the  same  translation. 

Stephen  was  addressing  the  Jews;  he  intimated 
to  them  their  true  character:  that  they  were  a 
people  peculiarly  hardened.  And  in  order  to  pre- 
sent this  to  their  understanding — he  intimates  a 
doctrine,  they  did  not  deny,  that  they  were  peo- 
ple in  covenant  with  God,  that  they  were  yet  un- 
der the  obligations  of  this  covenant,  this  they  con- 
fessed by  their  acknowledgement  of  the  rite  of 
circumcision,  because  that  feoderal  compact  be- 
tween God  and  Abraham  was  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision. This  is  the  evident  reason  why  he 
refers  to  the  17,  chapter  of  Genesis.* 

But  the  apostle  Paul  drawing  his  argument  from 
the  date  of  the  covenant  names  it  accordingly. 
Let  it  be  granted,  that  these  inspired  men  had  re- 
spect to  two  seperate  dates  of  the  same  covenant, 
what  plea  does  this  afford  Mr.  C?  Will  he  think 
to  prove  from  this,  that  they  must  be  distinct.    Yes 

*It  is  evident  Stephen  was  no  baptist,  Mr.  C. 
says  this  covenant  to  which  Stephen  refers  only 
secured  the  land  of  Canaan,  but  the  cause  for 
which  Stephen  was  pleading,  neither  knew  par- 
ticular spots  of  the  world,  or  yet  particular  na- 
tions. To  have  quoted  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision would,  according  to  the  Baptist  view,  have 
established  nothing  for  the  obligation  of  the 
church. 


BAPTISM.  57 

says  Mr.  C.  for  this  plain  reason.     'The   one  re- 

•  v'ealed  to  Abraham  when  seventy  five  years  old, 
'  departing  from  Haran  Gen.  12,  3.  four  hundred 
'and  thirty  years  before  the  giving  of  the  law;  the 
'  other  made  with  Abraham,  when  ninety  or  an 
'hundred   years    old  Gen.  17.     Why  I  say   call 

*  these  two,  the  Abrahamic  covenaniV  P.  14.  Ans. 
Because  the  contract  was  made  with  Abraham 
first,  when  he  was  seventy  five  years  old,  and 
again  repeated  with  some  things  additional  when 
ninety  nine  years  old.  I  call  both  the  same  cove- 
nant because  most  people  deny  that  the  simple 
repititionof  a  contract  under  different  circumstan- 
ces and  for  different  reasons,  necessarily  implies 
a  new  contract — with  this,  common  sense  agrees 
1st.  when  Abraham  was  first  called  out  of  Ur  of 
the  Chaldees  and  constituted  the  father  of  the 
faithful,  he  received  the  first  revelation  of  the  co- 
venant of  Grace  Chap.  1.3.  2nd.  When  God  re- 
vealed to  him  the  mournful  captivity  to  which  his 
posterity  should  be  reduced,  he  repeats  the  same 
covenant,  for  the  further  confirmation  of  his  faith 
—  HE  then  gives  an  additional  confirmation  of  the 
same  covenant,  by  typically  presenting  to  his  faith 
the  security  and  light  of  the  church  in  the  day  of 
adversity,  that  while  they  passed  through  the 
burning  fiery  furnace — they  should  be  favored 
with  the  light  and  comforts  of  the  gospel.  Chap.  15. 
3rd.  When  the  blessings  of  this  same  covenant 
were  for  many  ages  to  be  continued  to  his  posteri- 
ty of  whom  Christ  was  to  be  born,  and  who  were 
also  now  organized  as  a  church — he  now  reveals 
for  the  third  time  the  same  covenant  and  for  the 
first,  appeared  as  a  sign,  or  seal,  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision. 

But  Mr.  C.  would  have  the  reader  to  believe 


58  BAPTISM. 

that  it  was  impossible  that  these  could  be  the 
same,  because  of  the  lapse  of  time  between  the  re- 
velations made  to  Abraham.  That  the  reader 
may  judge  of  the  strength  of  his  arguments — we 
recapitulate  the  substance  of  our  observations. 
The  .first  revelation  of  the  covenant  of  grace  was 
made  to  Abraham,  when  seventy  tivejears  old, 
about  ten  years  after  when  the  faith  of  Abraham 
needed  a  peculiar  confirmation  the  same  cove- 
nant was  again  revealed,  with  the  necessary  ad- 
ditional confirmations.  Lastly  when  this  was  in 
a  great  measure  to  be  confined  to  his  natural  pos- 
terity, and  it  became  necessary  to  add  a  seal,  he 
again  revealed  the  same  covenant  and  added  cir- 
cumcision. Of  these  covenants  I  may  either 
speak  in  the  singular  or  plural  numbtr:  If  I 
speak  of  the  substance,  without  refering  to  any 
circumstance,  I  mention  it  in  the  former  sense; 
but  if  I  refer  to  the  different  revelations  made, 
then  with  the  apostle  I  name  it  in  the  plural — cove- 
nants. 

To  'argue  from  them  as  one,  and  the  same,  js  a 
'blunder  too  glaring  in  this  enlightened  age.' 
'Whatever  the  apostle  calls  tliem;  he  prete.  ;es;4hc 
'same  number  to  whom  says  he,  pertain  the  cove- 
'nants  of  promise,  again,  to  Abraham  and  his  seed 
'were  the  promises  made.  On  these  two  cove- 
'nants  which  are  of  such  ancient  date,  were  the 
*two  dispensations  foundt'd;  the  Jewish  and  the 
'  Christian.'  P.  20.  Such  round  assertions  deserve 
clear  argument, or  else  the  reader  will  be  dispos- 
ed to  say;  we  have  nothing  but  assertion,  and  in- 
deed such  a  conclusion  appears  evident.  When 
Mr.  C.  does  not  even  attempt  either  to  form  the 
distinct  nature  or  substance  of  covenants,  from 
which  to  draw    his   new-fashioned    conclusion. 


BAPTISM.  59 

We  grant,  that  the  covenant  of  grace  has  many 
promises,  even  every  gospel  promise  contained  in 
theB'i)le.  When  tlie  apostle  spoke  of  these  pro- 
mises he  mentioned  them  in  the  j)Iural  number, 
or  when  he  dissignated  the  covenant  by  the  dif- 
ferent revelations — or  the  numerous  promises  it 
contained,  he  uses  the  plural  number — but  who 
will  hence  infer,  that  there  was  a  plurality  of  cove- 
nants. 

That  the  Jews  derived  their  blessings  from  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  is  also  true;  but  when 
we  attend  to  tlie  particular  specification?  revealed 
to  \braham  in  that  covenant;  even  the  slightest 
attention  vyill  render  it  evident,  that  other  nations 
were  equally  included.  Gen.  17.  5.  'Neither 
shall  thy  name  any  more  be  called  Abram  but  thy 
name  shall  be  Abraham;  for  a  father  of  many  na- 
tions, have  I  made  thee,'  v.  15.  IG.  'And  God 
said  unto  Abraham,  as  for  Sarai  thy  wife,  ihou 
shalt  not  call  her  nanie  Sarai,  but  Sarah  shall  be 
her  name.  And  I  will  bless  her,  and  give  thee  a 
son  also  of  her,  yea,  I.  will  bless  her,  and  she  shall 
be  a  mother  of  nations;  kings  of  people  shall  be 
of  h^  '  It  is  obvious  that  in  this  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, Abraham  was  constituted  the  father  of 
the  faithful;  the  'nations  born  in  a  day'  should, 
from  the  items  of  this  contract  be  constvtuted  his 
seed,  and  of  course,  Christians  in  all  ages  of  the 
world,  will  be  founded  upon  this  covenant. 

Although  we  grant  that  the  New  testament  is 
founded  upon  the  covenant  mentioned  in  the  12th. 
Chap,  yet  we  deny  that  this  dispensation  is  exclu- 
sively founded  upon  that  revelation  of  it.  Were 
we  so  prolific  of  covenants  as  Mr.  C.  we  would 
however,  deny  that  the  New  testament  churchy 
was  founded   upon  the  revelation,  mentioned  in 


60  BAPTISM. 

the  12th.  Chap,  and  assert  that  it  was  upon  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  we  are  founded  From 
the  passages  just  quoted,  it  is  evident  that  in  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  such  names  were  gi- 
ven to  the  covenanters,  as  rendered  it  evident, 
they  were  the  church  in  a  foederal  sense,  why 
■was  Abram  called  Abraham?  because  he  was  to 
be  the  father  of  nations,  or  Sarai,  Sarah?  because 
she  was  to  be  the  mother  of  nations.  If  the  rea- 
der enquire  upon  what  covenant  believing  nations 
are  founded.  I  answer  upon  that  covenant  in  whicii 
Abraham  was  constituted  their  father — which  fact 
took  place  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 
Gen.  17. 

Another  circumstance  rendering  the  same  doc- 
trine more  obviotis,  is  that  in  the  same  covenant, 
Isaac  was  promised.  This  son  was  the  person  by 
whom  Abraham  became  related  to  the  heathen 
nations,  who  would  become  converts  to  the  reli- 
gion of  Jesus.  These  are  the  children  of  Abraham 
in  the  same  spiritual  sense,  Isaac  was.  Ttie 
apostle  Paul,  who  certainly  agrees  with  the  view 
I  have  given — lays  down  the  same  assertion,  and 
for  the  proof  of  it,  quotes  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision Rom.  9, 7.  'Neither  because  they  are 
the  seed  of  Abraham  are  they  all  children, 
but  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called.' 
The  apostle  quotes  Gen.  17,  19,  a  part  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcisions,  it  remains  evident  that 
upon  this  covenant  the  apostle  founded  that  rela- 
tion which  all  believing  nations  have  since  claimed 
to  Abraham.  Now  let  Mr.  C.  settle  this  point  with 
the  apostle  Paul. 

I  shall  mention  another  reason  why  the  opinion 
of  Mr.  C.  respecting  ihi«»  covenant  must  be  ab- 
surd.    I  mean  the  term  by  which  it  is  expressed 


13  APTISM.  '  ei 

in  Gen.  17,  everlasting  covenant  than  wiuch  no 
stronger  term  can  be  used  to  express  Ihc  cov- 
enant of  grace.  But  lest  this  scripture  appellation 
of  Mr.  C's.  Jewish  covenant  might  carry  too  much 
conviction,  he  easily  passes  over  the  difficulty,  by 
declaring  that  the  wordeverlas^ng'is  used  in  a  limit- 
ted  sense  in  scripture;  I  answer  that  the  term  ever- 
lasting,  means  duration  without  end — this  is  its 
literal  and  only  meaning,  and  is  never  otiierwise 
used  except  in  figure.  Mr.  C.  calls  this  play  upon 
the  word  everlasting,  page,  52,  'The  term  cver^ 
'  lasting  is  often  used  as  a  relative  term  in  the 
•  scripture,  and  in  the  very  chapter  in^which  the 
'covenant  of  circumcision,  is  called  an  everlasting 
'  covenant,  in  their  flesh,  we  have  the  term  so 
'  used  V.  8.  'and  I  will  give  the  land  of  Canaan  for 
'  an  everlasting  possession.''  In  this  he  presents 
his  reader  with  two  reasons  why  the  term  everlast- 
ing cannot  mean  forever.  The  1st  is  thatit.was  to 
be  an  everlasting  covenant  in  their  flesh — and 
therefore  could  not  outlive  their  flesh.  The  2nd 
is  that  the  land  of  Canaan  was  given  for  an  ever- 
lasting possession  which  could  not  continue  any 
longer  than  the  time  of  the  Jew5  inhabiting  that 
land. 

Let  it  be  observed  as  a  fact,  that  Mr.  C.  and  the 
Universalists,  convert  the  meaning  of  the  word 
everlasting,to  signify  a  limited  time,  just  as  it  serves 
their  respective  purposes.  The  Universalian  says, 
that  the  term,  everlasting,  means  eternity  when  ap- 
plied to  the  future  happiness  of  saintg,  but  when 
applied  to  future  punishment,  it  is  taken  in  a  limit- 
ed sense;  to  the  feelings  of  the  human  mind,  the 
one  is  admissible,  but  the  other  too  painful  to  be 
admitted.  So  Mr.  C.  will  admit  this  term  in  its  full 
sense,  if  applied  to  the  New  testament  church ;  for 
G 


62  BAPTISM. 

fits  system  is  not  thereby  injured:-  but  if  it  be  ap- 
plied to  the  privileges  of  the  saints  under  the  Old 
testament,  and  especially  to  a  covenant  to  which 
circumcision  is  appended;  then  it  can  only  mean  a 
few  years. 

That  the  term  everlasting  is  used  in  a  limited 
«ense  I  have  granted,  but  have  also  observed  that 
it  is  only  so  used  when  in  figure:  for  example,  hills 
are  called  everlasting  Gen.  49,  26.  Yet  Mr.  C.  will 
grant  that  it  would  be  very  absurd,  to  draw  literal 
conclusion",  that  depend  upon  tern>,s  iigurativcly 
used.  Upon  the  principles  established  by  Mr.  C, 
in  his  reasoning  upon  the  term  everlasting,  I  estab- 
lish this  theory,  that  the  word  river  only  means 
drops  of  water,  occasionally  falling,  because  the 
Psalmist  David  declares  that,  'rivers  of  waters  run 
down  from  his  eyes.'  If  we  endeavour  to  est£l:- 
lish  any  position,  from  the  use  of  the  word  everlast- 
ing in  scripture,  its  figurative  application  is  imme- 
diately presented  by  an  Universalian  or  by  Mr.  C 
After  all  their  efforts  they  succeed  in  establishing 
this  assertion  only — that  the  word  everlastings  when 
figuratively  used  is  taken  in  a  limited  sense.  But 
let  me  ask  any  Baptist  of  common  sense,  what  is 
the  meaning  of  the  word  everlasting?  he  replies — 
forever,  eternal,  duration  without  end.  I  am  afraid, 
therefore,  when  Mr.  C.  endeavours  to  hide  him- 
self behind  this  figure,  that  some  farmer  will  chase 
him  from  behind  it,  and  expose  his  retreat  to  the 
world.  The  place  to  which  Mr.  C.  refers, 
respecting  the  Jexeisk  covenant,  is  a  simple 
statement,  and  therefore  the  word  everlasting  must 
have  its  simple  meaning.  To  give  an  honest  ex- 
planation of  such  passages  of  scripture,  every 
^fVOTd  must  have  its  proper  and    natural  significa- 


BAPTISM.  68 

tion.  It  is  thcrelbre  Mr.  C.  and  not  Mr.  W.  that 
plays  upon  the  word  everlasting. 

I'liat  the  land  of  Canaan  svas  given  to  them  for 
a  token  of  an  everlasting  possession,  should  be  ad- 
mitted, it  tould  only  be  in  this  sense,  they  were 
to  possess  it  forever.  So  Paul  reasons  upon  the 
promises  of  this  land,  originally  made  to  the  Jews, 
in  Heb.  4.  He  shews  that  it  was  given  to  them 
for  a  rest,  but  not  for  the  only  rest.  v.  8.  'For  if 
Jesus  (Joshua)  had  given  them  rest,  then  would 
he  not  afterwards  have  spoken  of  another  day.'  It 
was  with  the  rest  of  Canaan  as  it  is  with  the  sab- 
bath, a  figure  of  an  eternal  rest.  Such  indeed  are 
ail  temporal  blessings  to  God's  people,  they  are  a 
token,  an  earnest  of  spiritual  favors,  to  be  eter- 
nally enjoyed  with  God  in  the  heavens.  In  this 
sense  Israel  received  the  earthly  Canaan  for  an 
everlasting  possession:  the  order  was  first  an 
earthly,  then  an  heavenly  Canaan,  the  first  a  figure, 
the  second  a  reality;  righteously  to  enjoy  the  for- 
mer was  to  possess  the  latter  in  figure. 

We  shall  now  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to 
Mr.  C"s.  observations  on  Gen.  17.  13,  17.  'He 
that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he  that  is  bought 
with  thy  money,  must  needs  be  circumcised,  and 
my  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh,  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant.'  Hear  his  comment.  'But  so 
'  long  as  they  continued  in  that  covenant,  were 
'  they  to  enjoy  that  land:  nor  could  they  have  a 
'  covenant  in  their  flesh  which  would  last  longer 
•  than  their  flesh.'  page  52. 

The  most  obvious  meaning  of  this  passage  is  1st 
that  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham 
had  a  sign  or  a  seal,  that  this  sign  was  marked  in 
the  flesh;  by  which  it  might  be  discovered  that  he 
and  his  seed  were  a  people  in  covenant  with  God, 


6i  MPTISM. 

2nd.  That  the  blessings  of  this  covenant,  ii»f 
sign  of  wliich  was  marked  in  the  flesh  of  Abraham 
and  in  the  flesh  of  his  i>eed,  were  to  be  everlasting. 
The  matter  of  which  covenant  was  expressed  v.  7. 
'To  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  aftci 
thee.' 

3rd.  That  the  conclusion  drawn  by  Mr.  C.  must 
be  false,  is  indeed  self  evident,  because  a  covenant 
or  contract  may  last  long  after  the  seal,  or  the 
evidences  of  it  are  done:  e.  g.  The  grandfather 
of  Mr.  C.  bought  and  aftervvards  occupied  a  farm, 
tlie  contract  has  not  lost  its  evidences  and  seals; 
yet  his  grandson  Mr.  C.  occupies  tlie  same  iniicr- 
itance  and  that  by  the  same  contract:  and  upon 
the  same  principle,  liis  posterity  may  occupy  it  for 
a  thousand  year?!.  So  the  Israelite  while  he  lived, 
carried  with  him  the  seal  or  token  of  this  covenant, 
and  being  found  in  Christ  when  he  died,  he  went 
to  heaven  to  r<i:ip  its  everlasting  fi'uits.  Thus  l:e 
went  to  an  everhisting  rest  to  enjoy  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant  of  grace  which  were  sealed  in  lii^ 
flesh,  while  he  was  in  this  world.* 

We  have  now  succeeded  in  either  adding  one 
more  covenant  to  Mr.  C's  seven,  or  reducing  their 

*Mr  C's  reveling  mode  of  argument  often  runs 
liim  against  common  sense — so  eager  is  he  to 
prove  that  the  term  everlasting  only  mean's  some 
short  time,  for  fear  of  its  true  meaning  being  ap- 
plied to  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  that  he  at-' 
tempts  to  establish  this  position,  that  the  obliga- 
tions and  privileges  of  all  contracts  continue  only  as 
long  as  the  mark  or  seal  on  the  paper  continue. 
This  covenant  could  continue  no  longer  than  the 
fle^h.  Upon  his  principle  there  is  not  a  man  'm 
England  hokU  any  lands  by  just  litle;  for  although 


BAPTISM,  65 

number  to  six.     The  reduction  is  the  most  prob- 
able.    So  far  as  the  stipulations  are  revealed  to  us, 
we  find  no  reason    to  depart  from    the    common 
faith  of  tlie  church  upon  this  point:  and  indeed  we 
think  it  extraordinary  any  one   should.     In    Gen. 
12.  we  have  the     first  revelation   of  the  promise, 
We  have  the  same  renewed  and   confirmed  by  sa- 
crifice in  the   15  chap,  and  this  sacrifice  to  be  per- 
formed under  such  circumstances,  and  with   such 
rites,  as  to  intimate  to  Abraham  the  sorrows  of  his 
offspring;  yet,  however  great  their  troubles  were 
lobe,  this  covenant  should  exist  in  its  full  force  and 
and  be  their  security;  therefore  a  'smoaking  fur- 
nace and  burning  lahap'   passed  between  the  cue 
pieces  of  the  sacrifice.     We  have  still    the  same 
promise,  but  more  fully  revealed  in  the  17  chapter. 
But  here  the  covenant  was  not  to  be  confirmed  by 
sacrifice;  as  in  the  15  chap,  or  merely  its  promises 
committed  to  his  memory,  but  a  lasting  memorial 
of  it  Q^n graven  in  his  flesh,  in  the  rite   of  circum- 
cision. 

In  my  turn,  1  would  now  ask  Mr.  C.  why  not  call 
these  covenants  the  same.  One  Lord  proposing  it, 
one  body,  with  whom  the  covenant  was  made,  the 

the  titles  may  be  preserved  on  record,  yet  this  is. 
not  the  signature  of  the  contractors,  it  is  only  a 
proof  that  such  covenants  did  exist;  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision may  be  lost,  and  therefore  this  seal  of 
the  covenant  of  grace  is  no  more.  Will  Mr.  C. 
say  that  therefore  the  moral  obligations  and  privi- 
leges of  that  transaction  are  also  done  while  yet  a 
faithful  record  of  the  covenant  and  seal  is  found 
in  the  word  of  God,  and  the  moral  obligations  of 
the  contract  remaining,  and  the  spiritual  privilege* 
of  it  etill  dispensed.'' 

a  a 


'66  BAPTISM. 

same  blessings  always  promised,  evea  blessings 
temporal  and  spiritual.  Why,  Mr.  C.  not 
call  these  covenants  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
v.'hen,  in  the  first  making,  as  well  as  in  the  renew- 
al of  this  covenant  he  sustained  his  foederal  or  re- 
presentative character,  he  made  and  renewed  it 
as  the  'Father  ofthe  faithlul ?' 

But  will  Mr.  C.  still  insist  that  4  or  5  covenants 
were  made  with  Abraham,  as  many  with  Isaac  and 
with  Jacob?  Then  I  invite  the  reader  to  compare 
'„he  view  he  has  given  us  of  these  covenants,  with 
(he  representation  God  himself  has  given  us,  in 
L'sal.  103,  8,  9,  10.  *He  hath  remembered  his 
covenant  forever,  the  word  he  commanded  to  a 
:ho!!sand  generations:  which  covenant  he  made 
with  Abraham  and  his  oath  unto  Isaac,  and  con- 
iii'med  the  same  unto  Jacob,  for  a  law,  and  unto 
Israel  for  an  everlastirsg  covenant.'  This  cove- 
nant even  by  Mr.  C's  concession,  was  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcision.  It  promised  the  earthly 
Canaan,  V.  11.  This  possession  in  the  revelation 
of  that  covenant  was  secured  upon  the  same  pre- 
cise principles  that  tlie  same  covenant  in  its  pre- 
sent administration  gives  us  OUT  bread  and  makes 
our  water  sure — and  this  given  to  us  for  the  same 
reason  it  was  given  to  them,  mentioned  in  the  same 
Psalm,  10  enable  us  to  discharge  our  duty,  v.  45. 
'That  they  might  observe  his  statutes  and  keep 
his  laws.' 

Mr.  C.  attacks  the  Pedo-Baptists  with  an  host  of 
arguments,  founded,  as  he  supposes,  upon  the  8th. 
of  Heb.  and  musters  up  almost  every  verse  in  the 
chapter  to  his  aid.  P.  38,  39 ,40.  Before  we 
present  you  with  a  reply  to  his  observations  we 
would  premise:  that  there  is  an  artful  way  of 
running  over  scripture,  either  in  order  to  form  a 


By^PTISM.  67 

party  from  among  those  who  never  read  it  with 
interest,  or  concern,  and  who  indeed  prefer  any 
carnal  light  to  Divine  revelation;  or  else  t«  delude 
the  ignorant  and  well  intending  part  of  mankind. 
Thus  the  fbllowers  of  Immanuel  Swedenbur^er, 
prefer  his  wild  deliriun;,  to  any  doctrines  however 
fairly  laid  upon  scripture;  they  prefer  the  dream 
of  a  fanatic  to  the  solid  declarations  of  God's 
word. 

It  is  in  tliis  manner  Mr.  C.  plays  upon  a  few 
deluded  people.  When  he  finds  if  necessary  he 
suffers  his  inventive  mind  to  create  scripture  as 
we  have  shown  in  the  General  observations  on  his 
work.  If  the  literal  expressions  of  scripture  seem 
to  answer  his  purpose,  he  urges  it — and  heaps  an- 
athemas upon  the  man  who  deserts  it.  When 
you  succeed  in  binding  him  fast  with  express  letter 
— he  instantly  musters  a  pile  of  Lexicons  as  in 
P.  151.  By  these  he  succeeds  in  proving  that  the 
words  used  in  scripture  cannot  mean  what  every 
English  reader  woukl  suppose.  Thus  Proteus- 
like, you  catch  him  in  one  shape,  he  escapes  in 
another;  and  all  to  sufjport  his  novel  theory. 
Were  it  not,  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  how  far 
a  person  may  be  deluded,  I  could  not  think  that 
even  Mr.  C.  believed  the  comment  he  has  given 
us  on  the  8Pth.  of  Heb, 

Dr.  Gill,  an  eminent  Baptist,  has  given  us  a  ve- 
ry large  comment  upon  the  scriptures.  On  almost 
every  verse  he  gives  us  a  great  variety  of  senti- 
ment, and  presents  his  readers  with  different 
opinions — Mr.  C's  systena  was  not  inveuted  before 
the  time  of  Dr.  Gill,  and  with  all  hi-?  variety  he 
never  names  the  opinion  of  Mr.  C.  We  shall  pre- 
sent you  with  a  short  extract  from  the  Dr.  upoa 
the  Chapter  from  which   we    dispute,  that   you 


m  BAPTISM. 

may  compare  the  sentiments  of  the  learned  Bap- 
tist with   his  successor  Mr.  C.     'The  words   are 

*  cited  from  Jer.  31.  32.  in  which  God  promises  a 
'  new  covenant,  so  called  not  because  new  made; 
'  for  with  respect  to  its  original  constitution,  it 
'was  made  from  eternity;  Christ  the  mediater  of 
'it,  and  with  whom  it  was  made,  was  set  up  from 
'everlasting,  and  promises  and  blessings  of  grace 
'  were  put  into  his  hands  before   the  world  began: 

*  nor  is  it  merely  revealed,  for  it  was  made  known 
'  to  Adam,  and  in  some  measure  to  all  the  Old  tes- 
'  lament  saints,  though  it  is  more  clearly  revealed 
'  than  it  teas;  but  it  is  so  called  in  distinction 
'  from   the  administration   of  it,    which  is  waxen 

*  old  and  vanished  away.'  Dr.  Gill  or  Mr.  Boothe, 
Baptists  of  the  old  school,  would  have  been  offend- 
ed with  the  views  of  our  modern  disputant,  and 
DO  doubts  would  have  saved  Pedo-baptists  the 
trouble  of  replying — we  shall  however  give  you 
his  opinion. 

In  order  to  present  fairly  to  the  reader  the 
view  of  Mr.  C.  on  this  chapter,  in  order  to  give 
a  reply — we  shall  give  you  a  summary  view  of  the 
reasons  why  these  covenants  cannot  be  the  same. 

1st.  Because  it  is  called  in  that  chapter  a  better 
covenant,  established  upon  better  promises,  v.  6.  7. 
The  first  was  faulty — the  second  faultless. 

2nd.  Because  the  covenant  promised  in  Jer.  3L 
is  called  a  new-covenant  and  the  covenant  which 
he  would  make  with  the  New  testament  saints, 
would  not  be  according  to  the  covenant  he  made 
with  their  fathers,  v.  8.  9, 

3rd.  From  the  items  of  the  covenant  itself  v. 
10, 11,  12.  which  covenants  differ  in  four  respects 
1st.  The  law  of  the  first  was  written  on  stones. 
The  eecond  upon  the  heart.    2nd.  In  the  first  he 


BAPTISM.  69 

nas  their  God  in  a  national  sense;  but  in  the  se- 
cond in  a  spirilural  and  eternal  sense.  3rd.  It 
was  necessary  to  teach  the  subjects  of  the  old,  to 
know  the  Lord,  but  the  subjects  of  the  new  are  all 
taught  of  God.  4th.  Noremissionof  sins  was  pro- 
mised to  the  subjects  of  the  old  as  such;  but  to  the 
subjects  of  the  new  as  such  is  tlie  forgiveness  of 
sins  promised. 

4th.  Because  the  first  covenant  waxed  old  and 
vanished  away. 

W&  shall  now  attend  to  these  objections,  in  the 
order  of  the  summary  given.  The  New  testament 
is  called  a  better  covenant  for  three  reasons.  1st. 
The  change  of  priesthood — 2nd.  It  is  established 
upon  better  promises. —  3rd.  It  is  faultless.  To 
the  first  of  these  I  reply,  that  the  New  testament  is 
better  administered  than"  the  Old,  because  Christ 
himself  is  the  high  priest,  and  his  own  body  the 
sacrifice.  But  this  covenant  under  llie  former 
administration,  was  executed  by  persons  who 
were  only  typical  of  this  high  priest:  these  were 
falible,  changeable,  and  mortal  men.  Christ  the  an- 
tiiypical  Y'Srson  in  the  'fullness  of  time  appeared.*' 
'lie  entered  once  into  the  holy  place,  having  ob- 
tained eternal  redemption  for  us.'  The  word  us- 
ed by  the  apostle  is  dia //le /ce  justly  translated  a 
will  or  a  testament.  'Because'  says  Mr.  C.  of  its 
•being  the  usual  name  for  the  will,  disposition,  or 
'  arrangement,  which  is  rendered  valid  by  his 
'death.'  This  definition  is  just;  I  would  therefore 
ask  Mr.  C.  if  the  charge  of  the  administrators  of 
a  testament  will  change  the  tPi7/ itself?  I  answer, 
no — if  those  administrators  refuse  to  serve,  that 
have  been  appointed,  or  if  they  die  in  the  midst  of 
execution;  other  administrators  are  appointed; 
but  not  another  will  made,  as  Mr.  C.  would  have 


IfO  BAPTISM. 

it.  The  extent  of  the  apostle's  reasoning  in  the 
chapter  cited,  only  proves  that  the  change  of 
priesthood,  made  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  secures 
a  belter  administration  to  the  New  testament, 
than  our  fellow-heirs  had  under  tlie  former  dispen- 
sation. It  is  not  possible  that  any  reader  acquaint- 
ed with  the  common  transactions  of  life, or  the 
administration  of  wills,  can  credit  Mr.  C's  expla- 
nation of  Paul's  words. 

2nd.  Reason  why  the  covenants  cannot  be  the 
same.  The  neav  is  established  upon  better  pro- 
mises than  the  old.  Although  we  shoiild  admit 
all  Mr.  G.  says  upon  this  reason,  in  its  fullest  ex- 
tent, what  would  it  establish  for  his  theory?  no- 
thing but  that  which  is  conceded.  That  the  heirs 
to  whom  this  testament  \\r.s  first  administered,  fre- 
quently received  their  promises  through  types,  is 
conceded;  these  favors  were  oft  given  to  them 
wrapt  in  thick  vails;  through  which  their  faith 
had  to  penetrate,  in  order  to  reach  the  promise, 
These  types,  this  vail,  is  removed,  and  the  heirs 
have  now  more  ready  access  to  the  same  icill:  Mr. 
C's  inference,  'therefore  the  covenants  connot  be 
the  same' — is  without  a  premise.  Again,  reader, 
admire  Mr  C's  ingenuity.  Because  in  process  of 
time  and  change  of  circumstances,  heirs  have 
more  convenient  access  to  the  benefits  bequeathed 
them  by  their  common  father,  and  of  consequence 
more  enjoyment  in  the  possession  of  these  bless- 
ings than  those  had.  who  were  the  first  heirs — he 
takes  it  for  a  natural  consequence  that  therefore 
the  will  cannot  be  the  same.  Who  can  subscribe 
liis  creed? 

3rd.  Reason.  The  first  covenant  was  faulty — 
the  second  faultless.  I  reply,  that  Mr.  C.  will 
not  suppose  that  there  were    any    immoralities 


BAPTISM.  71 

in  the  first  covenant.  The  divine  being  was  a 
party;  fault  (comparative  defect)  indeed  was 
found;  with  the  administration,  it  was  dark,  clou- 
dy, veiled,  and  also  the  administrators  of  that  dis- 
pensation were  found  guilty  in  not  believing  the 
promises  of  that  covenant,  and  refusing  to  obey  its 
law.     Both  these  are  conceded. 

Fault  was  found  either  with  the  covenant  itself, 
or  with  the  administration.  It  could  not  be  with 
the  former,  without  blasphemy,  it  cannot  be  al- 
iedged  that  fault  can  be  found  with  any  covenant 
of  which  God  is  a  party,  its  law  was  divine  and  for 
that  time  was  as  positive  in  its  injunctions,  as  'thou 
shalt  not  kill.'  The  ceremonial  law  which  was 
the  law  of  that  dispensation,  an  existing  command 
founded  upon  the  Divine  will,  possesses  all  the  ob- 
ligation of  a  command,  founded  upon  the  Divine 
nature,  althoi.gh  the  former  of  these  may  be  re- 
pealed or  changed  by  the  deity,  yet  while  enjoin- 
ed, they  possess  the  force  and  perfection  of  the  mo- 
re? law. 

It  could  not  be  the  substance  with  which  the 
fault  was  found,  because  tiiese  were  blessings 
drawn  from  the  divine  bounty,  by  those  to  whom 
God,  in  that  covenant  had  promised,  that  'he  would 
be  their  God  and  the  God  of  their  seed.'  It  fol- 
lows that  the  fault  was  found  only  with  the  dis- 
pensation, which  I  have  shewn  did  not  affect  the 
being  of  the  covenant,  the  only  thing  in  dis- 
pute.* 

*For  the  satisfaction  of  Mr.  C's  Disciples  we 

shall   give  them  a  summary  of  his  three  reasons 

why  the  Old  and  New-testament  cannot  be   the 

same  covenant. 

B  and  C  were  tbe.sons  of  A.  When  A  their  father 


72  BAPTISM. 

Objection  2nd.  Comprehends  two  things.  1st. 
The  first  covenant  was  old,  the  second  new.  2nd. 
The  new  covenant  was  not  to  be  according 
to  the  old. 

To  the  first  of  these  I  reply  that  the  present  dis- 
pensation is  called  a  new  covenant  for  one  of  two 
reasons — the  first  of  these  must  be,  that  the  cove- 
nant or  will,  must  be  entirely  new,  this  however, 
is  impossible;  the  promises  of  that  covenant  which 
were  made  unto  the  fathers,  its  first  heirs,  were 
confirmed  by  the  death  of  the  testator  of  the  new- 
testament.  Rom.  15.  8.  Now  I  say  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  a  minister  of  the  circumcision,  for  the 
truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the  promises  made  unto 
the  fathers.'  I  would  now  ask  Mr  C.  If  one  testa- 
tor can  by  his  death  confirm  two  distinct  wills? 
he  must  answer.  No;  however  numerous  the  items 

died  he  left  them  equal  shares  of  a  very  large  es- 
tate. B  was  the  oldest  and  come  first  into  the 
possession  of  the  estate.  There  were,  however, 
i.hree  difficulties  thatB  had  to  encounter.  Isr,  He  was 
inexperienced,  there  were  many  things  he  could  not 
understand.  2iid.  The  administrators  through 
whom  B  had  to  look  for  his  estate,  were  also  ig- 
norant, and,  in  many  instances,  not  faithful.  3rd. 
In  the  early  times  in  which  B  come  into  the  posses- 
sion of  feis  estate,  none  were  capable  of  making 
}]im  utiderstand  the  will — B  was  often  perplexed, 
and  had  but  little  comfort.  But  when  his  young- 
er brother  become  of  age,  the  will  was  understood; 
the  first  administrators  dead,  and  a  full  regulation 
of  wills  fixed  in  law — Now  because  of  these  cir- 
cumstancial  differences,  who  will  say  that  Band 
C  were  not  brothers,  or  the  will  one?  Does  Mr. 
C.  believe  himself  that  they  were  not? 


BAPnSM.  73 

of  one  will  may  be,  the  testament  is  but  one,  every 
item  is  confiirped  by  the  death  of  the  tc>tator,  as 
truly  as  if  each  were  a  separate  ^cill.  Numerous 
promises,  indeed,  belonged  to  the  coveno-nt  of 
grace  in  either  of  its  administrations:  the  fathers  of 
the  Jews  to  whom  the  apostle  wrote,  were  heirs 
of  that  covenant;  the  promises  made  to  them,  were 
inferior  with  respect  to  evidence  to  those  made 
since — yet  they  were  confirmed  by  the  death  of 
Christ  the  testator,  and,  by  fair  consequence,  they 
were  the  promises  of  otzr  covenant,  confirmed  to 
them  and  us  by  the  'once  offering  up  of  himself.' 

But  'the  new  covenant  was  not  to  be  according 
to  the  old'.  This  is  Mr.  C/s  2nd.  reason.  I  ask 
why  it  was  not  to  be  accordinjr  to  it?  Was  it  in  the 
enjoyment  of  God  by  faith  ?  No:  for  while  the  evi- 
dence of  their  faith  was  inferior  to  ours;  yet  the 
being  of  this  grace  was  secured  to  the  subjects  of 
that  dispensaiion,  in  the  very  revelation  of  the  cov- 
enant. 'I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me 
and  thee,  and  ihy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  genera- 
tions for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  aGod  unto 
thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee.'  In  what  respect 
then  did  ihey  differ?  Answer  only  in  the  adminis- 
tration, which  is  granted. 

We  now  come  to  Mr.  C's  third  reason,  why  these 
covenants  cannot  be  the  same,  viz.  That  the  items 
of  the  covenants  were  not  the  same.  1st.  'The 
law  of  the  first  covenant  was  written  on  stone' — the 
law  "of  the  second  on  the  heart".  This  is  an  un- 
expected concession,  that  the  law  written  on  stone 
was  the  same  which  was  written  on  our  hearts  un- 
der thie  New  testament.  As  the  only  dispute  is 
jespecting  the  law,  I  care  not  where  he  finds  it 
written,  on  posts,  parchment,  stones,  or  flesh.  Is 
the  law  written  on  stone  the  same  that  is  written  on 
H 


•^4  BAPTISM. 

the  heart?  thpn  my  position  stands  unimpaired.  I 
think  the  tveakest  reader  will  be  unwilling  to  es- 
tablish this  proposition,  that  the  new  and  old  cov- 
enants were  not  one,  because  they  had  the  same 
law.  Mr.  C.  has  joined  a  wrong  link  into^  this 
part  of  his  chain. 

The  truth  is  that  the  same  law  which  was   first 
written  on  the  heart  of  Adam,  was  afterwards  writ- 
ten by  its  divine  author  on  tables  of  stone;    and  is 
now  written  by  the  same  law-giver  on  the    hearts 
of  his  people.     But  if  we  attach  any   meaning    to 
Mr  C's  observations  on  this  part  of  his  subject,  it 
is,  that  this  law  was,  under  the  Old  testament,  only 
vrrittenon  stone,  for  he  intends  by  this  assertion  to 
establish  an  essiential  difference  between  the  two 
covenants.    Query,  was    not  this  law    written  on 
the  hearts  of  Old  testament    saints?  Mr.  C.  thinks 
not;  he  supposes  it  was  only  written   on   stone  at 
that  time,  but  now  it  is  written  on  the  heart.     Let 
us  ask  an  inspired  Old  testament  saint.     Psal.  40, 
8.     "Yea  thy  law  is  written  in   my  heart."     No, 
says  Mr.  C.  it  was  at  that  tinie  written  on  stones, 
lying  in  the  ark — another  query:     AVhere  was  the 
law  of  Old  testament  saints,  after  the  Chaldean, 
burnt   the  house  of  God  and  the  ark?     The   truth 
is,  under  the  former  dispensation  it  was  written  on 
tables  of  stone,  and  also  on  the  hearts  of  the  saints 
of  that  dispensation.     Under  the  New  testament  it 
is  written  on  paper,  and  also  on  the  hearts  of  all  be- 
lievers. Mr.  C.  are  you  not  wearied  of  this  item?* 

*It  is  something  curious,  to  read  Mr.  C's  view 
expressed  in  this  first,  item.  Page.  40.  "In  the 
'  first,  the  laws  were  written  on  tables  of  stone,  and 
'  as  Moses  broke  the  stones,  so  the  people  broke 
*  the  laws.    la  the  2nd.  or  new,  they  are  written 


BAPTISM.  IB 

2nd.  Item.  '•HE  was  their  God  in  a  national 
and  temporal  sense.  But  in  the  2nd.  covenant 
HE  was  their  God  in  a  spiritual  and  eternal 
sense.' 

The  first  assertion  of  this  item,  if  he  means  God 
essentially  considered,  He  was  the  God  of  the 
Jews  in  a  national  &  temporal  sense,  it  is  conceded. 
But  in  this  very  far  advanced  state  of  the  new  tes- 
tament church,  he  is  the  God  of  saints  in  a  national 
and  temporal  sense — this  never  effects  the  cove- 
nant of  Grace  or  eitlier  dispensation  of  it.  But 
this  is  not  the  matter  at  issue.  The  question  is — 
was  Jesus  ever  the  saviour  of  any  nation,  as  such? 
— or  even  God  as  father,  the  Father  of  any  nation 
as  such?  I  think  no  Baptist  will  answer  in  tlie  af- 
firmative. Was  he  not  the  saviour  of  all  those 
under  that  dispensation  that  believed?  Whether 
then,  or  yet,  is  there  any  *other  name  given  un- 
der heaven  or  among  men,  whereby  wo  can  be 
saved,  but  the  name  of  Jesus?'  His  true  hypo- 
thesis  is,  God  stood  revealed  only  as  a  sovereign 

'  on  the  hearts  of  all  the  subjects,  consequently 
'  cannot  be  broken."  i.  e.  A  law  written  on 
stones  may  be  broken,  as  easily  as  Moses  broke  the 
stones,  but  a  law  written  on  the  heart  cannot  be 
broken.  I  suppose  Mr.  C.  must  mean  by  breaking 
alaw,  transgressing  its  precepts — heathen  have  not 
this  law,  written  on  paper,  nor  on  stones,  they 
have  it  only  on  their  hearts,  Rom.  2,  15,  'which 
shew  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts;' 
they  cannot  therefore  break  the  law,  or  in_a  word, 
it  is  impossible  now  to  sin,  because  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree,  every  person  has  now  the  law  written 
in  their  hearts!  This  is  liberty  for  those  who  can 
believe  it. 


■TG  BAPTISM. 

to  saints,  under  the  Old  testament;  while  indeed 
he  is  the  father  of  saints,  since  the  death  of  Christ. 
Those  Hopkinsians  who  deny  that  an  atonement 
was  essentially  necessary  to  salvation — Socinians 
that  an  expiatory  sacrifice  v/as  rendered  to  the  law 
and  justice  of  God,  might,  with  some  appearance  of 
consistency,  maintain  Mr.  C's  theory.  Ytt  I  think 
Ro  Baptist  will. 

Let  us  take  another  look  at  this  new  theory. 
Gad  once  saved  men  as  civil  citizens — but  now  he 
saves  them  as  adopted  children;  i.  e.  he  saved  the 
Jews  as  he  now  would  save  the  savages,  without 
sending  them  the  Gospel;  because  these  stand  re- 
lated to  God  in  as  strong  a  national  sense  as  the 
Jews  did.  I  am  not  doing  the  opinion  of  Mr.  C. 
any  injustice,  because  he  gives  this  item  as  a  dis- 
tinguishing charateristic  between  the  Jewish  be- 
lievers and  us. 

The  second  part  of  this  item,  that  we  are  now 
God's  people  in  a  spiritural  and  eternal  sense,  is 
not  denied*:  but  if  this  assertion  made  any  thing 
for  Mr.  C.  he  must  have  meant,  that  believers  un- 
der the  Old  testament,  were  not  his,  in  a  spiritual 
and  eternal  sense.  Was  this  the  idea,  the  spirit 
of  God,  by  the  apostle  Paul,  intended  to  convey  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Heb.  in  giving  us  that  list  ot 
Old  testament  worthies?  But  Mr.  C.  does  believe 
that  some  saints,  did  exist  under  the  Old  testa- 
ment; were  these  not  the  children  of  God  in  a  spi- 
ritual and  eternal  sense.  Were  they  united  toge- 
ther as  a  body?  if  they  were  so  united-r-they  were 
a  church — even  the  conclusion  in  somp  sense,  he 
concedes,  yet  when  the  reader  endeavours  to  fol- 
low his  sentiments — these  saints  come  out  a  na- 
tional, carnal,  temporal  church,  or  a  people  -called 
out''  of  the  world — as  one  nation  is  called  out  oi 


BAPTISM.  77 

another,  and  existing  separately,  acquires  a  dis- 
tinct national  character.  The  people  had  a  law, 
it  was  written  on  tables  of  stone,  but  not  on  their 
hearts.  They  were  saints,  but  only  in  a  national 
and  temporal  sense! 

3rd.  Item.  'The  subjects  of  the  old  covenant  re- 
quired to  be  taught  to  know  the  Lord,  but  the  sub- 
jects of  the  new,  are  all  taught  of  God.' 

This  item  is  expressed  in  that  form  that  is 
found  decisive:  strip  it  of  its  thin  dress  and  you 
will  see  its  true  character — then,  reader,  judge  for 
yourself.  Under  the  Old  testament,  parents  had  to 
send  their  children  to  school,  to  learn  them  to  read, 
priests  had  to  explain  the  law,  parents  had  to 
teach  their  children  its  statutes,  sitting  down,  ris- 
ing up,  by  the  way,  &c.  as  lawful  means  to  learn 
thrm  to  know  the  Lord.  But  under  the  present  dis- 
pensation, this  is  unnecessary,  the  Divine  Being, 
according  to  Mr.  C.  has  forbid  all  education-  this 
doctrine  will  be  very  agreeable  to  those  parents 
who  never  teach  their  children  to  read.  This 
must  be  the  meaning  of  Mr.  C.  or  why  does  he 
give  the  means  of  acquiring  knowledge  under  the 
two  dispensations,  as  a  reason  why  the  covenants 
cannot  be  one. 

The  passage  of  scripture  to  which  Mr.  C.  re- 
fers, *They  shall  all  be  taught  of  God,'  must  be 
understood  as  meaning  one  of  three  things;  either 
that  new  testament  saints  are  miraculously  filled 
with  knowledge,  without  the  use  of  means — That 
they  are  savingly  taught  by  the  spirit  of  God,  in 
the  sanctification  of  their  kftowlege^ — or  that  the 
removal  of  shadows  from  the  dispensation  of 
Grace,  rendered  the  means  of  knowlege  easy,  and 
Gospel  instruction  plain.  The  first  of  them  was 
true  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  for  some  time 
H  2 


•^8  BAPTISM. 

after.  The  second  will  apply  to  saints  under 
both  dispensations.  And  the  third  will  only  prove 
the  superiority  of  the  new  covenant,  which  is  con- 
ceded. But  will  either  of  these  prove  a  distinct 
covenant?  No — it  only  estiiblishes  this  assertion, 
that  the  heirs  of  the  second  dispensation  of  this 
covenant,  have  an  opportunity  of  more  clearly  un- 
derslandint^  their  tcstamont,  than  their  fellow 
heirs  had  who  lived  under  the  former.  The  spi- 
rit of  God  taught  then,  as  it  teaches  yet,  but  the 
means  of  grace,  lie  more  clearly  before  the  hu- 
man understanding  now,  than  they  did  at  that  time. 
Mr.  C.  fails  by  this  item,  in  proving  distinct  co- 
venants. 

4th.  Item.  'No  remission  ofsins  promised  to  Old 
•testament  saints,  as  such;  but  to  the  subjects  of 
New  testament  saints,  as  such,  forgiveness  is  pro- 
mised.' P.  40.      , 

What  idea  Mr.  C.  intends  to  convey  by  the 
clause  as  such;  is  difficult  to  tell.  I  may  not  do 
him  justice  when  I  attach  that  meaning  to  his 
words,  which  every  reader  must  do.  I  consider  that 
the  clause  cannot  have  any  sound  meaning;  if  for- 
sriveness  was  not  promised  to  them  as  members  of 
the  former  dispensation,  it  could  not  be  promised 
to  them  in  any  sense,  for  they  lived  under  no  oth- 
er dispensation.  If  he  means  that  forgiveness  was 
not  promised  to  them  as  civil  citizens,  then  the 
clause  was  useless^  because  no  person  then,  or  yet 
obtains  the  pardon  of  sin  in  any  other  sense,  than  , 
as  the  children  of  God,  in  union  with  Christ. 
The  third  and  only  meaning  can  be,  that  Old  tes- 
tament saints  did  not  obtain  the  pardon  of  sin  in 
any  sense. 

Nathan  told  David,  'the  Lord  hath  put  away  thy 
sin;'  not  as  a  New  testament  member,  for  this  he 


BAPTISM.  79 

was  not,  but  as  one  in  covenant  with  God.  There 
never  vvai'?  but  one  way  of  obtainiag  fori^fiveness  of 
sins,  i.  e.  through  the  blood  of  an  all-atoning  sa- 
crifice. The  coven;»fit  which  Mr.  C.  c;dls  their 
'National  covenant.'  P.  167,  promised  mercy:  Exo- 
du?  20.  6-  'She win 2:  mercy  unto  thousands  of  tiiem 
that  love  me,  and  keep  my  commandments.'  It  is 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  C.  that  this  Sinai  covenant 
contained  nothing  more  or  less  than  that  which 
was  written  on  the  two  tables  of  stone.  P.  166* 
Be  it  so,  and  my  quotation  is  a  part  of  that  which 
belongs  to  this  national  covenant.  Then  I  would 
ask,  how  can  God  shew  mercy  without  pardoning 
sin?     But  this  declaration,  is  made  to  the    subjects 

*'When  we  speak  of  the  Sinai  covenant,  we 
*  cannot  scripturally  include  one  word  more  in  it, 
'  than  what  was  written  on  the  two  tables.  See- 
'  ingboth  Moses  and  Paul  have  so  restricted  it.' 

It  was  not  my  intention  to  notice  every  absur- 
dity in  Mr.  C's  book,  for  many  of  them  are  too 
plain  to  do  much  harm,  but  he  is  so  positive  in 
this  place,  that  an  unsuspicious  reader  might  take 
it  for  granted,  that  he  was  right — lest  this  might 
be  so,  I  would  inform  the  reader,  that  neither  Mo- 
ses nor  Paul  so  restricted  it.  I  suppose  Mr.  C.  who 
is  but  a  late  writer,  is  the  first  that  so  restricted  it. 
It  is  conceded  that  the  ten  conmandments  con- 
tained the  substance  of  the  law  of  that  covenant, 
but  we  say  it  contained  no  more,  and  the  scrip- 
ture asserts  no  further.  It  was  called  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  because  it  contained  a  summary  of  that 
law,  which  believers  are,  by  covenant,  bound  to 
obey.  But  that  the  whole  of  the  covenant  was 
written  upon  the  tables,  has  no  higher  authority 
than  Mr  C. 


80  BAPTISM. 

of  the  covenant,  as  such,  therefore  the  subjects  of 
that  covenant^  as  such,  did  receive  the  pardon  of 
their  sins.  Look  again  at  Mr.  C's  assersion  'to 
the  subjects  of  that  covenant,  as  such,  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin  was  not  promised;'  with  this  compare 
a  declaration  made  to  the  subjects  of  that  dispen- 
sation, as  such,  at  the  very  time  of  delivering  the 
judicial  and  ceremonial  law.  Exodus  34,  6,  7. 
'The  LORD,  the  lord  god,  merciful  and  gracious, 
long  suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and 
truth.  Keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  in- 
iquity, and  transgression*  and  sin.'  Reader,  ob- 
serve, this  is  an  item  of  Mr.  C's — national  cove- 
nant— these  were  the  people  to  whom  the  pardon 
of  sin  was  not  promised. 

4th  Reason.  'The  first  covenant  waxed  old  and 
vanished  away  '  page  40  41.  In  the  pages  cited, 
he  calls  the  former  covenant  7nusty,  moth  eaten.  S/-c. 
When  Mr.  C.  used  such  expressions  at  the  time  of 
the  public  debate,  I  was  indeed  astonished,  that 
a  person  who  desired  the  world  to  take  him  for  a 
minister,  would  be  guilty  of  such  a  profane  ex- 
pression; but  I  now  think  him  more  inexcusable, 
when  in  the  cool  moments  of  composition,  he  still 
uses  them.  Is  it  not,  reader,  a  pity  to  Uiear  one 
who  makes  some  kind  of  a  professesion  of  Chris- 
tianity, however  far  it  is  from  the  truth,  use  such 
degrading  expressions  of  any  covenant,  of  which 
the  eternal  God  was  a  pa.rty.  Reader  blot  those 
expressions  out  of  your  memory. 

For  the  ju-iiification  of  this  reason  he  calls  your 
attention  to  Heb.  8,  13.  'In  that  he  saith  a  new 
covenant,  he  made  the  first  old,  now  that  which 
decayeth,  and  waxeth  old,  is  ready  to  vanish  away.* 
The  question  is,  to  what  does  the  apostle  refer  in 
this  verse.''  Either  he  must  mean  that  the  covenaat, 


BAPTISM.  81 

in  its  very  being  waxed  old,  and  was  ready  to 
vanish  away,  or  else  he  speaks  of  the  dispensa- 
tion of  it;  it  cannot  be  the  former,  and  therefore 
it  must  be  the  latter.  It  cannot  be  the  former;  be- 
cause: 

1st.  The  covenant  conveyed  and  secured 
blessings,  spiritural  and  eternal — God  had  pro- 
mised to  be  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of 
his  seed,  these  were  to  continue  before  him  for- 
ever. It  was  called,  as  we  have  shewn,  an  ever- 
lasting covenant;  by  this  covenant,  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Jacob  are  now  in  heaven.  This  is,  and  shall 
remain,  their  residence,  Matt.  22,  32.  Were  the 
doctrine  of  Mr  C.  true,  then  indeed  closed  all  the 
blessings,  and  all  the  privileges  of  any  contract 
God  ever  made  with  the  Jews,  as  his  people.  It 
IS  remarkable,  however,  that  Peter  revives  one  of 
Mr.  C's  musty,  moth-eaten  promises,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  when  the  blaze  of  the  New  testament 
shot  forth,  on  which  day  thousands  were  added  to 
the  family  of  Abraham.  They  were  Christ's,  and 
therefore  Abraham's  seed. 

2nd.  Clirist  was  the  substance  of  all  their 
shadows.  Heb.  10.1.  But  as  Christ,  the  substance, 
the  blessed  SUN,  began  to  rise,  the  shadows  began 
to  disappear,  and  to  'vanish  away.'  This  had  a  re- 
ference to  the  outward  rituals  of  the  church  alone, 
they  were  all  the  subjects  of  sense.  The  churbh, 
even  then,  and  long  before  that  time,  anxiously 
looked  fur  the  time  when  these  shadows  should 
'vanish  away,'  while,  for  that  time,  they  were  to 
them  a  medium,  through  which  they  held  C(jmmu- 
nion  with  God.  Their  resolution  is  expressed 
Song.  4.  6,  'Until  the  day  break  &  the  shadows  flee 
away,  I  will  get  me  to  the  mountain  of  Myrrh, 
and  to  the  hill  of  frankincense.' 


83  BAPTISM. 

3rd.  There  were  two  things  that  rendered  the 
covenant  unchangeable,  the  blessings  it  contained, 
and  the  parties  contracting :  to  the  former  I  have 
spoken  at  length.  On  the  last  of  these,  I  would  ob- 
serve,that  this  covenant  was  first  made  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  Christ  in  that  eternal  contract 
was  a  foederal  head.  Therefore  this  covenant 
was  between  the  Father  and,  through  Christ,  with 
the  church;  the  Father  is  unchangeable — 'I  am 
the  Lord,  I  change  not.'  The  son  is  unchange- 
able 'Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  and  to  day, 
and  forever'  The  church,  politically  considered, 
is  also  one.  *My  dove  my  undefiled  is  but  one.' 
This  party  shall  continue  forever.  Psal.  102.  28. 
The  children  of  thy  servants  shall  continue,'  the 
church  shall  'ever  be  with  the  Lord.' 

There  are  covenant  vows  which  secure  to  her 
the  eternal  possession  of  blessings,  and  of  this  Oid 
testament  covenant,  God  has  promised  that  he 
will  ever  be  mindful  Psal.  11,  5.  Then  I  infer 
that  a  covenant,  the  parties  and  the  promises  of 
which  will  exist  forever,  is  a  covenant  that  can- 
not wax  old,  and  cannot  vanish  away. 

We  grant  that  true  religion  was  about  departing 
from  the  Jews  when  Christ  came;  the  sceptre  was 
droping  from  the  hand  of  Judah,  when  HE  lifted 
it  up,  the  traditions  of  men  are  supplanting 
Divine  revelation,  these  are  truths;  but  they 
cannot  be  learned  from  the  passage  to  which  Mr.  • 
C.  refers. 

It  follows  by  native  inference  that  the  dispensa- 
tion of  grace,  wh'ch  comprehends  the  external 
rites  peculiar  to  that  dispensation,  were  the  only 
parts  of  that  covenant  that  'waxed  old'  'vanished 
away.* 


BAPTISM.  63 

Mr.  C.  for  once,  having  found  an  argument  that 
he  supposes  may  be  seen,  invites  Pedo-BapUsts  up 
to  the  sight.  'Oh!  Tliat  every  Pedo-Baptist  would 
'  remember  it:  it  should  forever  silence  my  oppo- 
•  nent  on  these  topics,  it  reads  thus.  In  that  he 
'  sayeth  a  new  covenant  he  hath  made  the  first  old. 
' — Now  THAT  which  is  old  is  ready  to  vanish 
away.'  Page  40 — Now,  what  has  Pedo-Baptists 
discovered  in  the  text?  That  beyond  all  doubt  it 
proves  that  the  ceremonies  and  all  things  peculiar 
to  the  outward  dispensation  of  the  old  covenant, 
'  waxed  old  and  were  ready  to  vanish  away'  an 
important  discovery!  yet  known  to  all  you  l?edo- 
Baplists  from  your  childhood,  from  the  time  your 
parents  taught  you  that  question:  'How  many 
covenants  are  there?'  Our  argument  founded  up- 
on the  8th  of  the  Heb.  remains  untouched. 
While  Mr.  C.  is  quite  exhausted,  fighting  his 
shadow,  yet  he  has  this  satisfaction,  that  he  has 
played  upon  the  inattentive  reader,  from  t!ie  only 
circumstance  that  the  word  covenants  is  mentioned; 
which  he  would  have  you  to  believe  respected 
the  being,  not  the  external  parts  of  that  covenant. 
The  reader  will  perceive  that  the  only  difference 
Mr.  C.  has  yet  succeeded  in  establishing,  is, 
that  there  were  different  dispensations  to  the  same 
covenant. 

In  page  70  Mr.  C.  proposes  Mr.  W.  Three  intri- 
cate and  pertinent  questions,  that  without  doubt 
must  bring  a  decision  'in  his  favor,  on  the  subject 
of  the  covenants. 

1st, 'Are  they  the  same,  in  respect  of  the 
'  nature  and  extent  of  the  privileges  secured  to 
'  the  respective  subjects,  under  each  of  these  cov- 
'  enants.' 

0nd.  'Ape  they  the  same  in  respect  of  the  inte- 


84  BAPTISM. 

*  resting,  or  entitling  condition;  tkat  is,  is  the 
'  ground  of  interest  and  of  claim,  the  same  1n 
both?' 

3rd.  'Is  the  condition  of  the  continued  enjoy- 
'  ment  of  the  covenanted  blessings,  the  same  in 
'  both  covenants?' 

To  the  first  of  these  I  reply,  essentially  con- 
sidered, they  arc,  but  as  it  respects  their  external 
privileges  they  are  not.  Fur  the  illustration  of 
which,  I  observe, 

1st.  That  the  faith  of  the  subjects  of  each  cove- 
nant was  the  same.  Christ  was  the  alone  and 
proper  object  of  faith,  under  both  dispensations. 
'For  other  foondation  can  no  man  lay,  than  that  is 
laid,  which  is  Jesus  Clirist.'  1.  Cor.  3,  11.  There 
never  was  any  other  superstructure  of  mercy,  than 
tlie  church,  and  it  was  built  on  this  foundation — 
for  this  faith  many  of  the  Old  test-iment  saints 
were  famous.  If  Christ  be  refused  by  Mr.  C.  to 
be  the  object  of  their  faith,  and  ground  of  their 
atonement;  what  will  he  choose?  their  sacrifices 
will  not  do,  they  were  an  object  of  sense, not  of  faith; 
they  will  not  do  for  a  ground  of  atonement;  David 
in  Psal.  ol.  would  have  given  them  for  this 
purpose,  but  found  thej^  would  not  do.  v.  16. 
'For  thou  desirest  not  sacrifice,  else  would  I  give 
it.  Thou  delightest  not  in  burnt  offering.'  It 
was  in  consideration  of  this,  that  Christ  said  to 
the  subjects  of  the  former  dispensation:  'Lo  I 
come'  Psal.  40.  Their  prophets  all  taught  them' 
to  look  beyond  their  sacrifices.  Acts..  3,  18/  -  But 
these  things  which  God  before  had  shewed  by 
the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets,  that  Chrisfshould 
suffer,  he  hath  so  fulfilled.' 

Their  faith  and  hope  united  in  him,  this  was  the 
language  of  Old  testament  saints.    'But  he  was 


BAPnSM.  85 

wounded  for  our  transgressions,' he  was  bruised 
for  our  iniquities:  The  chastisennent  of  our  peace 
uas  upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed' 
Isaiah  53.  5. 

3rd.  In  both  these  covenants  there  is  a  secu- 
rity given  for  spiritual  and  temporal  blessings, 
that  the  first  contained  spiritual  blessings,  I  think 
is  proven.  The  relation  subsisting  between  God 
and  them  secured  the  continued  possession  of 
these  blessings— this  relation,  the  basis  of  all 
their  blessings,  was  promised  in  the  very  covenant 
now  in  dispute,  viz.  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion. I  will 'be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed 
i'fter  ihce.'  This  relation  God  uas  to  sustain,  for 
the  special  purpose  of  eecuring  them  the  blessings 
contained  in  (hat  covenant.  That  the  same  dis- 
pensation secured  temporal  blessings,  is  not  denied. 

That  the  new  covenant  secures  both  these  bless- 
ings, will  also  appear.  That  it  secures  spiritual 
,  blessings  is  not  denied.  Tiiat  it  secures  a  right 
to  temporal  blessings,  Mr.  C.  docs  not  deny;  he 
only  sports  a  little  upon  the  subject,  page  78,  and 
this  in  order  to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  from 
the  subject,  lest  they  unhappily  see  the  breach  in 
the  link  of  his  chain.* 

*  It  is  remarkable  that  Mr,  C.  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  his  own  mind,  although  he  disregarded  the 
requests  of  the  intelligent  reader,  did  not  attempt 
to  tell  us  in  what  manner  believers  were  under 
the  New  testament,  made  partakers  of  temporal 
good  things;  had  he  attempted  this,  I  grant,  it 
might  have  discovered  to  his  mind  that  uniformity 
which  in  this  respect,  existed  between  the  two 
covenants — No — he  must  have  one  all  carnal,  the 
other  ail  spiritual.    This  best  suits  feis  purpose. 


86  BAPTISM. 

In  addition  to  the  observations  made  on  our  first 
proposition  on  promises:  "Bread  shall  be  given 
and  your  water  made  sure ;'  'Blessed  are  the  meek 
for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth'  &c.  Intimate  that 
<jrod  as  Father,  has  graciously  condescended  to 
his  people,  to  secure  them  a  right  to  temporal 
blessings.  He  not  only  bestows  them  without  a 
curse,  but  with  a  covenant  security:  these  bless- 
ings in  every  sense  are  theirs.  The  covenant  of 
grace  makes  all  its  subjects  free,  the  heirs  of  this 
Divine  testator  are  free  in  time  and  in  eternity, 
'whom  the  son  makes  free  are  fiee  indeed.'  They 
are  not  only  delivered  from  the  covenant  of  works 
apd  all  its  curses,  but  from  the  world  and  all  ser- 
vile obligations  to  it.  They  are  therefore  the  on- 
ly persons  who  inherit  the  earth. 

2nd.  There  is  no  difference  with  respect  to  cov- 
enant title  which  a  believer  has  to  the  farm  on 
which  he  lives,  and  the  right  which  a  believer  had 
to  his  possessions  in  the  land  of  Caanao,  Jinder  the 
former  dispensation.  They  are  both  inheritois  ot 
the  earth,  as  Abraham's  seed.  'If  ye  be  Christ's 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed.'  The  Divine  pro- 
mise is  the  title  the  Jews  had  to  the  land  of 
Caanan,  our  title  is  the  same. 

Mr.  C.  page  79,  attempts  to  give  us  the  differ- 
ence of  the  two  titles;  the  claim  of  the  Old  testa- 
ment subject  was  founded  on  this:  'If  ye  be  Abra- 
ham's seed,  through  Sarah,  then  are  you  heirs  ac- 
cording to  the  promise.'  But  our  claim  is:  'If  ye. 
be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abrahams  seed.'  This 
distinction  may  be  easily  discovered  by  one  of 
Mr.  C's  disciples,  I  cannot  see  it.  Because  all  the 
rights,  immunities  and  privileges  we  possess  in 
virtue  of  b&ing  foederally  represented  by  Abra- 
ham, iii  any  covenant  were  all  by  Isaac.    So  says 


BAPTISM.  »1 

ihe  apostle  Gal.  4.  28.  'Now  we,  breUiren,  as  Isaac 
n-as,  are  the  children  of  promise.'  In  any  future 
age  after  the  death  of  Abraham,  such  Midiaiiites 
Ishmaeliles  oic,  his  natural  descendents,  as  be- 
lieved, they  received  the  blessings  of  Abra- 
ham, not  from  any  natural  relation  to  him,  but 
by  Isaac,  the  child  of  promise.  Unfortunately  for 
Mr.  C.'s  system,  it  is  in  the  covenant  of  Circum- 
cisioT>,  where  we  have  the  first  special  promise  of 
the  birth  of  Isaac,  the  sod  of  promise. 

But  the  title  of  the  heathen  world  to  the  church, 
is,  by  the  apostle  Paul,  declared  not  only  to  be  by 
Isaac,  promised  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
but  also  conveyed  to  the  heathen  in  the  same  way 
it  was  to  him.  Rom.  9.  7,8.  'Neither  because 
they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham  are  tliey  all  chil- 
dren: but,  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called;  that  is, 
tliey  who  are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  these  are 
not  the  children  of  God:  but  the  children  of  the 
promise  are  counted  for  the  seed,'.  In  the  cov- 
II ant  made  25  years  before  this  mentioned  in  the 
17  chap  of  Gen.  I  grant  a  seed  was  promised,  but 
from  any  thing  said  in  the  12th  chap,  it  was  im- 
possible fer  Abraham  to  have  learned  which  of 
his  sons  was  to  be  his  heir)  but  the  covenant  of 
circumcision  gnentioned  the  son — his  child  by  Sa- 
rah, the  child  of  promise,  by  whom  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles obtained  the  possession  of  Abraham. 

The  seed  of  Abraham  by  Isaac,  were  the  branches 
among  whom  the  Gentile  converts  were  grafted 
in,  and  both  these  enjoyed  blessings  by  Abraham 
in  the  same  way,  I  know  not,  if  any  of  the  natural 
or  temporal  blessings,  possessed  by  Abraham,  con- 
sidered as  an  individual  man,  descended  to  his 
third  generation,  it  was  because  Isaac  was  his  son 
of  promise,  that  he  received  more  blessings  for  him- 


38  BAPTISM. 

self  and  his  seed,  than  Ishmael  did,  and  because 
he  was  the  son  of  promise,  that  we,  as  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  receive  blessings  by  him. 
Again  hear  his  question,  'are  thej  the  same'in  re- 
'  lation  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  privileges 
'  secured  to  the  respective  subjects  under  each  of 
'  these  covenants?'  From  what  has  been  said,  the 
ansiver  is  easy.  They  received  their  privileges 
through  the  same  external  medium,  from  the  same 
autlior  by  means  virtually  the  same,  from  the  same 
covenant,  and  as  children  of  the  same  family.  Mr. 
C.  at  his  leisure  can  tell  the  difference  and  upon 
due  thought  he  will  find  it  nothing  more,  than 
that,  which  I  have  already  shewn — the  pecitliarities 
of  the  dispensation. 

Quest.  2nd.'Ar<!  they  the  same  in  respect  of  the 
interesting  or  entitling  condition?'  ^c. 

If  by  the  interesting  or  entiling  condition  Mv. 
C  means  that  which  in  law  gives  us  the  claim  to 
ij)e  prr.iieges  of  the  covenant,  I  answer,  it  is  the 
same  in  both  covenants,  fiiith  in  the  obedience  of 
our  Lord,  is  the  interesting  claim;  the  obedience 
of  this  mediator,  the  alone  fulfilment  of  the  condi- 
tion for  either  Jew  or  Gentile.  The  spirit  of  God 
by  the  apostle  Paul  has  erected  too  strong  a  wall 
to  inclose  this  doctrine,  to  be  thrown  down  by 
Mr.  C.  Rom.  4. 16.  'Therefore  it  is  by  faith  that 
it  might  he  by  grace;  to  the  end,  the  promise  might 
be  sure  to  all  the  seed;  not  that  only  which  is  of 
the  law,  but  that  also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abra- 
ham, who  is  the  father  of  us  all.'  Will  Mr.  C. 
make  works  the  entitling  condition  of  either  new- 
er Old  testament  saints.  We  will  however  attend 
to  this  in  its  proper  place. 

Q.  3rd.  'Is  the  condition  of  the  continued  en- 
'  joyment  of  the  covenanted  blessings,  the  same  in 


BAPTISM.  89 

'  in  both  covenants?'  To  this  I  answer,  yes;  be- 
cause the  fulfilment  of  the  condition  of  this  cov- 
enant, under  any  of  the  dispensations,  secures  the 
continuation  of  the  blessings  to  the  covenanted 
persons; God's  oath  secures  it  to  the  church  in  all 
ages.  Psal.  89,  35  36.  'Once  have  I  sworn  by  my 
holiness,  that  I  will  not  lie  unto  David,  his  seed 
shall  endure  forever,  and  his  throne  as  the  sun  be- 
fore me.' 

3rd  The  change  of  dispensations  that  took 
place  nearly  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  did  not 
vary  the  deeds  or  other  Zand  fx/Zes  with  believers, in 
the  land  of  Canaan.  The  rights  of  property  were 
the  same,  when  Christ  left  the  world,  that  they 
were  before  it.  This  assertian  is  true,  whether  we 
speak  of  the  claims  of  believersin  relation  to  God, 
or  man.  Mr.  C.  would  endeavour  to  persuade  the 
reader,  that  such  individual  believers  as  Christ 
found  on  earth,  received,  by  his  coming,  new 
titles  to  temporal  property.  These  believers 
lived  under  both  dispensations:  when  they  lived 
under  the  former  dispensation,  all  the  rights  they 
possessed  to  temporal  property,  were  conditional, 
but  no  sooner  did  the  dispensation  change,,  than 
they  found,  that  this  condition  for  the  continued 
possession  of  the  blessings  was  also  changed,  of 
courfe,  all  the  titles  founded  upon  this  change,  had 
to  be  varied  accordingly.  I  am  certain  that  the  pe- 
rilous state  of  Jewish  titles,  as  taught  by  Mr.  C.  ne- 
ver once  occured  to  any  lawyer  in  all  Judea.* 

*  The  reader  will  Jook  attentively  at  Mr.  C's 
query.  'Is  the  condition  of  the  continued'  &c.  Is 
it  just  reasoning  to  contrast  the  temporal  blessings 
of  Old  testament  believers  with  the  spiritual  bless- 
ings of  saints  now.''  To  reason  fairly  we  must 
I  2 


.  90  BAPTISM. 

3rd.  The  store  house  of  free  grace,  was  opened 
immediately  after  the  fall,  the  public  proclama- 
tion \vas  to  all  to  conie  and  possess  the  blessings 
contained  in  it.  The  grant  was  unconditional,  a 
right  lo  the  continued  possession  of  the  good 
things  of  this  world,  so  long  as  was  necessary,  was 
found  among  the  pther  treasures,  an^  equaljy  se- 
cured to  believers.  This  was  equally  secured 
to  Jew  or  Gentile  converts  without  mentioning 
time,or  refering  to  national  distinction;  Christ  de- 
clares, 'Blessed  are  the  meek  for  they  shall  in- 
herit the  earth.' 

Were  you  to  credit  Mr.  C.  you  would  believe 
that  the  situation  of  people  under  the  Old  testa- 
inent  dispensation;  differed  but  little  from  the 
staleof  man  under  the  covenant  of  works,  Adam 
in  a  state  of  innocency,  had  a  right  to  eternal  life, 
but  there  was  a  condition  that  lay  between  him, 
and  the  continued  possession  of  the  blessings  of 
that  covenant.  That  his  situation  was  precarious 
was  proved  by  the  event  hisfall^hut,  according  to 

compare  their  temporal  blessings  with  ours,  as  al- 
so their  spiritural  blessings,  with  those  under  the 
present  dispensation.  Continued  possession  of  tem- 
poral blessings,  I  grant,  had  some  conditions  in 
every  age  of  the  world,  life  was  uncertain,  and  this 
from  a  variety  of  causes,  besides  the  want  of  food, 
ButJ  titles  to  these  several  blessings,  distinct  in 
their  nature,  were  in  any  age  of  the  world  the 
same.  The  Jews  had  no  nriore  covenants  or  any 
more  security  for  temperal  blessing  than  we  have, 
an  American  believer,  has  the  'continued  posses- 
sion' ofhisfarm  upon  the  same  condition  that  a  Jew 
had,  or  at  least  Mr.  C.  has  not  shewed  the  differ- 
ence. 


BAPTISM.  91 

Mr.  C.  this  was  the  precise  situation  of  those  who 
were  U(  der  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  Page 
'  79.  'The  first  depended  upon  an  if,  it  was  condi- 
'  onal;  they  w^re  to  enjoy  it  so  long  as  they  were 
'  wiilini?  and  obedient,  consequently  by  their  dis- 
ob«  d  ence  thev  were  excluded.' 

The  word  ?/,  was  no  more  expressive  of  a  con- 
dition in  the  covenant,  God  made  with  the  Jews, 
than  it  is  under  the  present  dispensation.  The 
reader  will  compare  the  language  used  respect- 
ing the  blessings  of  the  new  covenant,  with  those 
quoted  by  Mr.  C  from  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion. Heb.  3.  6.  'Bat  Christ,  as  a  son  over  his  own 
house,  whose  house  are  we,i/'we  hold  fast,  the 
confidence  and  the  rejoicing  of  the  hope,  tirm  un- 
to the  end.'  John  31.  'Then  said  Jesus  to  those 
Jews  who  believed  on  him,i/"ye  continue  in  ray 
word,  then  are  ye  my  disciples  indeed.'*  The 
word  if,  has  in  these  passages,  as  much  the  force 
of  a  condition,  as  in  any  declaration-  made  to  Abra- 
ham or  any  of  his  children. 

To  be  willing  and  obedient,  is  a  summary  duty 
enjoined  in  the  present  administration  of  grace, 
as  really,  and  with  all  the  authority  it  ever  possess- 
ed, and  I  might  add,  that  it  is  as  really  conditional 
as  ever  it  was,  since  the  fall.  Mr  C.  mistakes  the 
point,  when  he  supposes  that  the  'new  covenant,' 
has  relaxed  our  obligation  to  duty.  But  the  truth 
is,  that  the  Divine  Being  never  did  require  any 
conditional  duty  since  the  fall  of  man,  even  faith, 


*  Mr.  C.  with  the  assistance  of  Thomas  Aquinas 
must  in  his  next  treatise  shew  the  difference 
between  the  use  of  the  word  if  in  these  passages 
and  the  use  of  it,  in  the  covenant  made  with  the 
Jews. 


92  BAPTISM. 

which  is  a  moral  duty,  is  not  conditionally  requir- 
ed. It  has  the  sanction  of  a  Divine  command. — 
'This  is  the  command  of  God  that  yn  believe  on 
his  Son. — 'The  true  consequence  of  believing  is 
also  stated.'  'He  that  believes  nhall  be  saved.' 
Yet  it  is  called  the  'gift  of  God" — and  is  therefore 
a  promised  blessing;  and  would  therefore  be  the 
condition  of  itself.  *Ifye  be  willing  and  obedient, 
ye  shall  eat  the  good  of  the  land,'  states  the  conse- 
quence of  obedience — 'it  is  eating  the  good  of  the 
land,'  but  obedience  is  no  more  the  condition  of 
their  continued  possession  of  that  land,  than  it  is 
of  our  continued  possession  of  the  blessings  of 
ternal  life,  as  is  evident  from  the  passages  just 
quoted.  But  in  Page  79. — 'Mr.  W.  will  be  assham- 
ed  of  his  answer.'  I  shall  now  leave  it  with  the 
reader  to  judge,  who  has  the  best  right  to  be  as- 
shamed.* 

Mr.  C.  says  'that  the  first  covenant  was  enjoin- 
ed in  such  a  way,  as  it  might  be  forfeited.'  This 
indeed  makes  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  a  covenant  of  works.  In 
the  first  covenant  God  made  with  man  upon  the 
condition  of  obedience,  he  promised  eternal  life — 
had  he  given  this  obedience,  he  would  have  been 
entitled  to  eternal  life.     But  this  is  the   language 

*It  is  something  remarkable  that  the  system  ot 
grace  the  Baptists  have  adopted,  is  so  contradicto- 
ry in  its  very  nature  &  being.  By  legal  obedience. ' 
saints  under  the  Old  testament  were  saved — they 
are  however,  now  saved  by  grace.  Although  Mr. 
C.  has  invented,  in  most  things,  a  system  entirely 
new — never  heard  of  by  the  Prophets,  or  yet  any 
of  his  brethren,  in  this,  however,  he  has  followed 
the  Baptist  writers  generally. 


BAPTISM.  93 

of  Mr.  C.  respecting  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion. This  covenant  of  which  Mr.  C.  is  the  in- 
ventor vva'^,  in  its  very  feeing  and  organization,  a  co- 
venant of  works,  and  like  it,  had  its  eternal  forfei- 
ture. Thus  after  the  covenant  of  works  was 
made,  and  broken,  another  covenant  was  made 
upon  a  similar  condition,  without  surety  or  indeed 
any  security  for  the  continued  possessmi  o(  its  bless- 
ings bht  our  corrupt  will;  Query,  How  was  the 
state  of  the  Jewish  believers  rendered  any  better 
by  it?  2nd.  Query,  As  every  one  of  the  Jews 
were  unwilling  and  disobedient — they  were  sin- 
ful beings,  why  were  they,  not  instantly  chased 
from  the  land  of  Canaan,  as  our  first  Parents  were 
from  the  'Garden  of  Eden.' 

It  appears  now  that  the  Divine  Being,  according 
to  Mr.  C.  made  two  covenants  with  Abraham  as 
a  public  person;  the  first  covenant,  a  covenant  of 
grace,  the  second  a  covenant  of  works.  The  first 
secured  all  blessings,  freely,  the  second  con- 
ditionally, with  disobedience  ihey  might  enjoy  the 
blessings  of  the  former,  but  obedience  was  requi- 
ed  as  the  entitling  condition  of  the  latter.  By  the 
first,  Abraham  and  his  posterity  were  made  free, 
by  the  second  they  w^ere  bound.  The  simple 
statement  of  Mr.  C's  Doctrines  in  this  place  is 
their  refutation.  We  shall  now  proceed  to  an- 
swer his  remaining  queries.  P.  "/G.  85. 
Query  4th.  'If  both  these  covenants  are  the  same, 
in  what  respect  is  the  new  said  to  be  better 
than  the  old?' 

Answer.  In  the  dispensation  alone,  for  reasons 
already  given. 

Query  5th.    'Are   the  duties  enjoined  upon  the 
covenanters  the  same  in  both?'* 

*What  does  Mr.  C.  mean  by  the  'duties  enjoin- 


94  BAPTISM. 

Ans.  Yes — with  the  difterence  of  circumstance 
alone.     To  which  I  have  also  attended. 

Query,  6tl).  'Are  the  penalties  threatened,  the 
same  in  both/' 

I  answer  there  are  no  penalties  appended 
to  either  covenants.  He  was  exxeedingly  sur- 
prised when  Mr.  W.  gave  this  answer;  and  this 
astonishment  he  expresses  with  much  I'ervor  P. 
S6. — and,  here  he  intimates  the  consequence  as  it 
respects  Mr.  W's  doom,  before  the  bar  of  that 
church  to  which  he  belongs,  but  in  this  part  of 
the  discussion  I  rather  think  Mr.  C.  should  save 
his  fears  and  tremble  before  the  bar  of  his  own 
conscience.  Because  he  is  the  first  man  of 
whom  I  have  ever  read,  or  heard,  that  declared 
that  the  covenant  of  grace,  either  as  administered 
under  the  Old  or  NeM-  testament,  possessed  any 
penalty,  f  every   branch  of  the  true   church  holds 

ed  being  the  same  in  both.'  The  duties  enjoined, 
upon  any  two  individuals  are  not  the  sarae,  much 
less  can  they  be  expected  to  be  the  same,  under 
two  different  dispensations.  Mr.  C.  was  not 
bound  to  the  same  precise  duties  in  single  life 
that  he  is  now — he  was  not  then  bound  to  love 
his  wife  and  teach  his  children.  Query ,  Is  he 
now  under  the  sarae  law  he  was  then?  th's  pos- 
sesses all  the  force  of  quer}  5th. 

t  I  have  supposed  perhaps  Mr.  C,  meaQt  noth- 
ing more  by  the  word  penalty,  tlian  diasiiscment: 
this  might  in  some  measure  appear  cof^sistent  with 
his  observations,  upon  what  he  calls  the  penal- 
ties of  the  New  covenant;  but  it  will  not  do  when 
fried  by  his  observations  upon  the  Old  covenant. 
This  novel  and  erroneous  expression  must  either 
rise  from  ignorance   or  corrupted  understanding, 


BAPTISM.  95 

that  Christ  bore  the  penalty  of  the  covenant  of 
ivorks,  and  tfus  he  agreed  to  do  in  the  covenant  of 
grace.  Why  then  should  his  people  in  any  age  of 
the  world,  be  subject  to  a  penalty?  The  papists 
arc  the  alone  body  on  earth,  called  by  the  christi- 
an name,  that  on  this  point  agree  with  Mr.  C. 
They  suppose  that  full  satisfaction  was  not  made 
to  the  law  and  justice  of  God  by  Christ  Jesus — 
that  therefore  another  place  of  punishment  is  ne- 
cessary, to  complete  the  penalty  of  the  law.  Pro- 
testants have  always  endeavoured  to  refute  them, 
by  establishing  the  fullness  of  Christ's  satisfaction, 
and  thereby  proving  that  the  doctrine  of  a  p«r- 
gotary,  was  not  only  absurd,  but  unnecessary. 
The  Baptists  have  enlisted  against  Mr,  C.  on  this 
point- — Mr.  C.  would  do  well  to  road  a  work  writ- 
ten by  an  eminent  Baptist,  Mr.  Bjotlie,  entitled 
Glad  tidings.  He  will  then  be  as  much  surprised 
at  Mr.  B.  as  at  Mr.  W.  But  if  Mr.  C.  has  no  ac- 
cess to  tliis  work  I  shall  submit  the  matter  to  an 
inspired  writer  Gal.  3,  13.  'Chrisfhath  redeem- 
ed as  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a 
c'jrse  for  us.'  For  Mr.  C's  sake  I  wish  he  had^ 
read  this  passage  before  he  had  said  so  mijch  a- 
gainst  Mr    W. 

He  says  the  penalties  annexed  to  'the  old  co- 
venant were  numerous  and  severe.'  P.  8G.  I 
grant  indeed  that  the  penalty  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  contains  curses,  numerous  and  severe; 
and    that,  during  every   revelation  of  the  Gospel; 

It  can  hardly  rise  from  the  former,  because  his  li- 
brary when  carried  to  the  stage  in  pomp,  present- 
ed nearly  a  cart  load  of  books,  and  as  an  indispu- 
table proof  of  the  good  sense  of  those  books  he 
told  the  audience  thy  crossed  the  sea. 


96  BAPTISM. 

these  curses  were  revealed  as  the  just  declarations 
of  the  Almighty,  against  tlie  unbelieving  and  dis- 
oibedient,  against  those  who  refused  to  become 
subjects  to  the  law  as  a  rule  of  life,  and  by  faith 
receive  the  promises  of  the  gospel.  If  a  city  of 
refuge  was  provided  for  New,  or  Old  testament 
sinners  and  they  refused  to  fly  to  it;  it  was  but 
just,  tliey  should  feel  the  potent  arm  of  the  aveng- 
er of  blood.  When  Mr.  C.  is  trying  to  preach, 
does  he  never  inform  his  hearers,  that  'he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned?'  He  considers 
himself  a  New  testament  member;  will  he  find  a 
penalty  more  severe  under  the  Old  testament? 
Does  he  never  inform  his  hearers,  that  without 
the  blessing  of  God,  they  are  cursed  in  Iheir  bas- 
ket and  in  their  store?  Moses  intimates  no  more 
under  the  former  dispensation.  If  Mr.  C.  asks  a 
blessing  to  the  food  he  eats,  docs  he  not  pray  to 
be  delivered  from  the  curses  mentioned  by  Moses 
and  olher  inspired  writers? 

But  here  lies  the  great  defect,  by  which  Mr.  C. 
thinks  to  escape.  He  takes  care  to  give  us  no 
meaning  of  the  word  penalty,  had  he  done  this  the 
reader  would  have  found  him  out.  The  distinc- 
tion between  a  penalty  of  a  law  and  fatherly  chas- 
tisement is  obvious.  They  are  distinct,  both  in 
their  administration  and  nature.  The  former  is 
inflicted  by  a  Judge,  the  latter  by  a  Father.  Pen- 
alty vindicates  the  justice  and  authority  of  a  law 
— chastisement  subdues  corruption,  the  first  con- 
demns, the  other  sanctifies.  The  matter  of  sen- 
sible, or  temporal  punishment  may  be  the  same  in 
both  cases;  but  very  different  in  their  nature  and 
end.  Even  the  Gallows  that  to  many  is  a  mourn- 
ful and  disgraceful  passage,  to  a  still  more  dread- 
ful place,  may  be,  to  some,  a  dark  passage  to  a 


BAPTISM.  97 

blessed  palace;  the  sufferings  even  of  death,  may 
be  the  same  in  both  cases,  yet  the  oiic  is  penalty, 
the  other  chastisement.  The  law  demand?,  by  its 
penalty,  ihe  death  of  a  wicked  man,  but  it/locs  not 
even  demand  natural  death  from  a  believer;  he 
dies  by  the  merciiul  rod  of  a  father,  but  not  by  any 
demarid  of  Justice.  It  is  to  them  a  new  covenant 
blessing.  'All  is  yours,  whether  Paul  or  Appollos, 
or  Cephas,  or  life,  or  death.' 

Mr.  C.  in  order  to  establish  h^s  self  created 
system,  entertains  you  with  an  extraordinary  com- 
ment on  Gen.  17.  14.  'And  the  uncircumcisee^ 
man  child,  whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin,  is  not  cir- 
cumcised, that  soul  shall  6c  cut  off  from  his  peo- 
ple, he  hath  broken  my  covenant.'  'The  cvtting  off 
says  Mr.;C.  'from  his  people,  was  the  penalty  first, 
proposed.'  P.  87.  Seldom  has  tliere  been  on  in- 
dividual raised  in  the  church,  too  ignorant  to 
know  that  the  expression  '■cutting  q^'  when  used 
in  scripture,  means  nothing  more  than  separa- 
tion from  the  church,  by  censure:  to  introduce 
prooff  for  the  establishment  of  this,  would  be  to 
impose  on  common  sense.  Even  the  Baptists 
have  often  inflicted  Mr.  C's  penalty  to  its  fullest 
extent.  It  is  the  end  of  all  penalties,  to  inflict  the 
punishment  for  crimes  required  by  the  law,  and 
no  further  to  consult  the  benefit  of  the  culprit  than 
is  consistent  with  the  dignity  of  the  law,  requiring 
such  penalty.  But  the  intention  of  all  disciplina- 
ry punishment,  is  ultimately  the  salvation  of  the 
subject.  1.  Cor,  5.  5.  *To  deliver  such  an  ore  un- 
to Satan,  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the 
spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.' 

But  each  of  these  covenants  have  penalties,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  C.  'The  ultimate  of  all  the  pen- 
'  alties  of  the  old  covenant  was,  the  final  and  eter- 
K 


m  BAPTISM. 

*  nal  rejection  of  refractory  subjects,  from  being 

*  the  people  of  God,  in  any  sense.  But  the  ulti- 
'  mate  of  all  the  penalties  of  the  new  covenant,  is, 
'  to  make  the  subjects  of  it  partakers  of  his  holi- 
'  ness,  and  to  exempt  them  from  the  condemnation 
'  of  the  world.'  Page  88.  The  penalties  of  the  first 
covenant,  condemned  forever,  but  the  penalties  of 
the  new  covenant,  saved  its  subjects  eternally.  4 
new  kind  of  penalties,  for  the  invention  of\yhich, 
Mr.  C.  deserves  the  honor.  In  all  the  Bible,  we 
have  no  such  account  of  penalties,  belonging  to 
either  of  Mr.  C's  covenants.  Let  us  hear  the  ti- 
tles and  description  of  Mr.  C's  penalties  by  an  in- 
spired writer — does  he  call  them  penal  ies  or  even 
hint  that  they  were  such?  Heb.  13.  8.  'But  if  ye  be 
without  chastisement,  whereof  all  are  partakers, 
then  are  ye  bastards  and  not  sons.' 

Reader,  again  turn  back,  and  review  Mr.  C's 
doctrine,  respecting  these  two  covenants,  with 
their  penalties,  conditions,  Sec.  Saints,  under  the 
Uld  testament — Mr.  C's  old,  'musty  covenant' 
were,  by  its  laws,  subject  to  the  pains  of  eternal 
death,  final  rejection,  &c.  It  was  indeed  discour- 
aging to  the  saints  of  that  time;  why  did  any 
of  them  forsake  their  father's  house — suffer  per- 
secution, wander  in  deserts,  and  after  all,  by  the 
laws  and  true  spirit  of  that  covenant,  might  be 
eternally  rejected?  If  his  doctrine  be  true,  there 
was  still  a  much  greater  difference  between  the 
two  covenants,  than  has  ever  occured  to  any  of  Mr. 
C's  predecessors.  It  was  nothing  less  than  this, 
that  saints,  under, the  first  dispensation  of  grace, 
were  not  only  in  a  conditional  state,  and  this  con* 
dition  was  perfect  obedience,  but  from  any  pro- 
mise of  this  covenant,  or  any  relation  they  held  to 
God,  might  finally  fall  from  a  state  of  grace.    Que- 


BAPTISM.  99 

rj:      Does    Mr.   C*     believe     his    own     system? 

'  Query  7.  Was  not  Abraham,  by  covenant,  the 
'father  of  a  two-fold  seed,  a  natural  and  a 
'  spiritual?' 

Ans.  No.  He  was  the  father  of  a  natural  seed, 
by  nature,  as  any  other  man  is  the  father  of  a  pos- 
terity— and  he  Nyas  the  father  of  a  spiritual  seed, 
by  covenant.  'It  was  not  the  children  of  the  flesh, 
but  the  children  of  the  promise,  that  were  reckon- 
ed for  the  seed.' 

'  Query  8th.  Did  not  Abraham's  spiritual  seed, 
'  consist  first  of  Christ,  and  all  that  in  him,  inherit 
♦  the  faith  of  the  father  of  the  faithful,  whether 
'  Jews  or  Gentiles,  and  of  them  only?' 

Ans.  Yes;  for  by  covenant  he  had  no  other  seed. 

'  Query  9th.  Did  not  the  covenant  of  circum- 
'  cision  exclusively  belong  to  the  natural  seed  of 
'  Abraham,  as  such,  and  to  them  Qnly,  as  specified 
'in  Gen.  17?' 

Ans.  No:  and  with  me  agrees  the  apostle  Paul. 
Rom.  4.  12.  'And  the  father  of  circumcision  to 
them  who  are  not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but 
who  also  walk  in  the  steps  of  that  faith  of  our  fa- 
ther Abraliam,  which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircum-. 
cised.'  This  last  query  proves  his  stock  was  ex- 
hausted, because  tijis  is  the  very  matter  in  dispute. 
By  Mr.  C's  definition  of  this  covenant,  Abraham's 
natural  sons,  circumcised  by  him,  seven  out  of  eight, 
were  excluded — six  sons  by  KetuE^ih,  and  one  by 
Hagar,  and  all  their  posterity  forever.* 

*Orithe  first  day  of  public  dispute,  Mr.  C. plead 
with  the  activity  and  ingenuity  of  uu  attornt-y,  to 
be  delivered  from  these  covenants,  but  having 
spent  a  studious  night,  he  appeared  to  be  quite 
recovered,  and  with  these  questions,  written  in  his 


100  BAPTISM. 

Having  now  endeavoured  to  establish  the  pro- 
position, and  having  attended  to  Mr.  C's  leading 
objections  to  the  doctrine  of  the  proposition,  we 
shall  now  look  a  little  at  his  appendix,  on  the  same 
subject. 

FIRST  COVENANT. 

The   Covenant  of  tcorks, 


Is,  I  grant,  a  true  covenant;  and  of  course,  does 
not  belong  to  any  of  this  spurious  list.  But  tven  on 
this  old  covenant,  Mr.  C.  must  exercise  his  inven- 
tive mind;  ^  while  nearly  6000  years  have  elapsed, 
since  this  covenant  was  entered  into,  Mr,  C's  im- 
provement has  never  occured  to  any.  ^Upon  the 
'whole  premises  wc  must  observe,  that  in  this  whole 
*  transaction,  Adam  was  entirely  passive.  He 
'stipulated  nothinsj.'  page  158.  I  do  not  say,  in  re- 
ply, that  Adam  did  stipulate  any  thing.  It  is  not 
necessary,  in  order  that  a  true  covenant  may  exist, 
that  both  parties  should  stipulate:  but  if  one  party 
propose  and  another  accept,  it  ig  a  true  contract. 
But  was  Adam  passive?     I  answer  No:  because  to 

hand,  vociferated  and  bantered  prodigiously,  what 
he  was  now  ready  to  do  with  Mr.  W.  on  these 
covenants.  Yet  alas!  nothing  was  made,  and  in  a 
few  hours  the  old  covenant  was  again  a  place  of 
torture  for  Mr.  C.  He  got  angry  at  it,  and  called  it 
the  'old  musty  covenant.'  But  when  he  comes  to 
write,  he  is  still  better  prepared,  but  still  does  as 
little  for  the  subject.  After  the  debate,  he  invent- 
ed four  new  covenants,  for  fear  of  being  confined 
to  two;  his  reply  will  probably  contain  a  few  more> 


BAPTISM.  101 

acciBpt  implies  action.  But  Adam  did  accept 
the  terms  of  that  covenant,  while  indeed 
it  is  not  expressly  mentioned,  it  is  not  only  fairly, 
but  even  in  the  very  being  of  the  covenant,  inn- 
plied.  The  nature  of  Adam  was  perfectly  con- 
formed to  the  Divine  will:  that,  therefore,  which 
was  the  will  of  God  to  demand,  was  the  will  of 
Adam  to  obey,  and  the  promises  made  by  God,  he 
chose  to  receive.  Moral  conformity  to  the  Divine 
will,  and  a  disposition  to  submit  to  his  Sovereignty 
in  all  things — were  created  with  him.  It  follows 
that  Adam  did  not  withhold  his  consent,  but  was 
active  in  giving  it  to  God.  But  Mr.  C.  will,  as 
usual,  be  ready  to  cry  out,  where  is  your  war- 
rant. I  answer  he  concedes  thejustice  of  my  plan 
of  infering,  in  the  same  covenant,  'the  token  or 
seal  of  this  transaction  was  the  tree  of  life.'  Here 
I  agree  with  him,  but  where  has  he  found  any  ex- 
press vi-airant  for  bis  doctrine?  where  is  life  pro- 
mised in  the  covenat  of  works.''  or  where  is  the  tree 
of  life  called  a  token  or  seal  of  this  covenant.'*  why 
these  are  implied.  This  I  grant;  but  I  have  evi- 
dence equally  strong,  for  Adam's  actively  conpent- 
ingto  the  terms  of  this  covenant.  Gen.  1.26.  'And 
God  said,  let  us  make  man  in  our  own  image  af- 
ter our  likeness.'  Mr.  C.  on  this  passage  must 
admit  one  of  two  opinions;  either  that  of  Immanu- 
el  S'.vedenburger,  which  declares  this  to  bo  a  cor- 
poreal likeness,  or  say  that  it  was  a  moral  likeness. 
Again,  Heb.  7,29.  "-This  only  have  I  found  that 
God  made  man  upright.  When  God  gave  the  com- 
mand, 'Thou  shalt  not  eat  of  the  tree  of  know- 
ledge of  good  and  evil,  was  Adam  in  possession  of 
this  holy  nature,  passive,  mute?  No:  this  would 
have  been  disobedience,  a  detestable  indifference. 
The  very  language  of  his  nature  was,  I  will  not  eat 
K  2 


102  BAPTISM. 

of  it.  1  wouldonly  observe  tliat  out  of  Mr.  C's  seven 
covenants,  we  have  not  one  fully  possessing  the 
character  of  a  covi^nant,  atid  indeed,  this  was  not 
in  fxnvfcnse  a  covenant,  if  Adam  was  passive. 

Cefore  I  proceed  to  view  his  remaining  six  cov- 
enants, I  would  premise  a  few  things. 

In  every  covenant  made  with  man  in  which  God 
promises  mercy,  grace,  or  any  other  blessing,  such 
promises  must,  in  some  form,  be  the  revelation  of 
the  covenant  of  grace,  and  inevery  instance  where 
the  formal  assent  of  the  church  is  mentioned,  it 
is  to  tliem  a  covenant  of  duty;  as  it  is  an  acknow- 
jnent  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  It  is  an  agreement 
to  receive  tlie  promises  of  this  covenant,  to  pro- 
fess its  truth  and  obey  its  law. 

A  frequent  revelation  of  this  covenant  became 
necessary  from  the  peculiar  circumstances,  in 
which  the  church  was  placed  ;sometimes  this  was  re- 
vealed by  way  of  promise.  It  was  thus  revealed 
(0  Abraham,  in  the  12th  chap,  of  Geneses,when  he 
was  first  called  out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.  Some- 
times it  is  made  known  by  the  revelation  of  its 
precepts;  this  was  the  manner  of  its  revelation  on 
Mt.  Sinai.  But  every  separate  revelatii)n  of  this 
covenant,  \yas  but  partial.  It  is  impossible  to 
take  any  just  view  of  it,  but  by  uniting  all  these* 
revelations  together,  we  shall  then  see  its  truth,  its 
promises,  its  law;  in  a  word,  the  scriptures  of 
truth,  is  this  toill  or  covenant,  sealed  by  the  death 
of  Christ  the  testator.  But  when  this  comprehen- 
Bive  view  is  taken  still  it  is  very  partial.  I  believe 
that  the  babe,  who  enters  into  eternal  life,  sees 
more  of  this  covenant,  than  all  saints  on  earth,  our 
blessings  in  this  world,  are  seen  at  best  but 
through  a  glass  darkly. 

The  first  revelation  of  this  oovenant  was  made 


BAPTISM.  103 

to  our  first  parents  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  in  a 
short  Gospel  Sermon,  by  a  blessed  preacher  of 
righteousness.  Here  Mr.  C.  should  have  cojjinienc- 
ed  his  second  covenant.  In  this  sermon  we  have 
a  revelation  ofan  agreement  of  our  foederal  hend,  to 
fulfill  the  condition  of  that  covenant,  and  to  bring 
in  an  everlasting  righteousness,  by  his  suffering 
unto  death.  Gen.  3.  15.  'I  will  put  enmity  be- 
tween thee  and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed 
and  her  seed;  it  shall  bruise  thy  hecid,  and  thou 
shall  bruise  his  heel'  But  in  process  of  time, 
when  ministers,  began  to  oppose  the  moral  law, 
which  was  written  upon  the  heart  of  man,  and  to 
encourage  loose  professors  in  the  violation  of  the 
sabbath,  a  doctrine  taught  by  the  Devil,  and  very 
agreeable  to  the  human  heart;  they  soon  obtained 
followers,  the  whole  human  race  was  destroj^ed  by 
a  flood,  with  the  exception  of  Noah  and  his  fami- 
ly. For  the  encouragement  of  the  new  world, 
jt  became  necessary  to  make  a  second  revelation 
of  this  covenant;  this  is  Mr.  C's. 


SECOND  COVENANT,  p.  159. 


'It  was  all  promises  and  no  commands.'  P. 
160.  It  is  true,  that  there  were  no  particular 
commands  sppcified;  yet  it  is  true  that  all  the 
commands  that  God  had  ever  revealed  to  man, 
were  fairly  implied  and  revealed  in  that  covenant. 
It  is  essential  to  the  nature  of  God  to  require  duty 
from  every  person  with  whom  he  makes  a  cove- 
nant. It  is  evident  from  Mr.  C'^  statement  of  this 
covenant,  that  he  supposes  this  doctrine  is  con- 
tained in  that  revelation,  (let  it  be  spoken  with 


104  BAPTISM. 

more  reverence  tljan  Mr.  C.  teaches  it,)  that 
as  moral  evil  produced  the  flood,  the  Divine  being 
now  made  a  covenant,  in  which  the  whole  world 
to  the  end  of  time,  mis^ht  do  as  they  pleased.  To 
make  ns  certain  that  this  is  his  view,  he  states  that 
this  'covenant  could  not  be  broken.'  It  was  a  co- 
venant without  a  law,  'where  no  law  is,  there  is 
no  transgression,'  Fallen  man,  could  not  be  a 
party  in  this  covenant,  or  yet  could  perfect  men 
be  a  party  in  it,  sin  is  the  breach  of  a  law,  holi- 
ness is  conformity  to  it;  but  wl.ere  no  law  is,  nei- 
ther of  these  can  exist.  Reader,  look  furtiier  at 
Mr.  C's  view  of  this  covenant;  a  covenant  giving 
great  temporal  mercies,  but  in  the  receipt  of  these, 
no  obedience  is  required.  Enjoy  all  its  blessings 
and  do  as  you  please,  is  his  definition  of  this  cove- 
nant. 

He  says  that  the  rainbow  was  merely  a  memo- 
rial of  this  covenant.  P.  16,  Perhaps  Mr.  C.  in 
this  assertion,  understands  himself.  Yet  1  thmk  it 
is  difficult  for  any  other  person  to  understand  this 
expression.  If,  by  the  rainbow  being  only  a  me- 
morial of  this  covenant,  he  means,  that  it  is  only 
to  keep  it  in  memory — then  it  is  another  of  his  netc 
inventions.  I  never  knew  it  to  be  denied  by  any, 
that  ever  heard  of  that  covenant;  that  the  rainbow 
was  a  token  that  God  would  never  again  destroy 
the  world  by  another  fl,ood;  at  least  this  is  tiie  Di- 
vine mind  on  this  subject,  io  opposition  to  Mr.  C. 
Gen.  9.  13,  14,  15.  'I  do  set  my  bow  in  the  cloud, 
and  it  shall  be  for  a  token  of  a  covenant,  between 
me  and  the  earth.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when 
I  bring  a  cloud  over  the  earth,  that  the  bow  shall 
be  seen  in  the  cloud:  and  I  will  remember  my 
covenant,  which  is  between  me  and  you;  and  eve- 
ry living  creature  of  all  flesh,  and  the  waters  shall 


BAPTISM.  105 

no  more  become  a  flood,  to  destroy  all  flesh.'  It 
follows,  that  the  rainbow  is  a  token  that  God  will 
never  destroy  the  world  by  another  deluge;  we 
therefore  propose  some  amendments  on  Mr.  C's 
view  of  this  covenant. 

1st.  That  it  was  a  gracious  act  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther 'Originating  in  him,  and  ordained  by  him 
alone.' 

2nd.  It  respected  the  church  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  gives  intimation  to  the  wicked,  that 
one  great  reason  of  their  preservation  is,  'for  the 
Elect's  sake,'  while  it  secures  the  continued  exis- 
tence of  the  animal  creation  for  the  use  of  man. 

3rd.  'It  was  absolute  and  unconditional,'  and 
yet  might  be  broken, 

4th.  'It  was  all  promises,' and  commands, 'the 
blessings  promised  were  temporal'  and  spiritual, 
'and  commensurate  w»th  time'  and  eternity. 

5th.  'The  token  of  it  was  the  rainbow,' whicli 
was  not  only  a  security,  that  the  world  should  ne- 
ver again  be  destroyed  by  another  flood;  but  also 
an  emblematical  declaration,  that  Christ  the  glo- 
rious rainbow  of  that  covenant,  of  which  this  was 
but  a  revelation  in  part,  Avould  never  suffer  the 
overflowing  vengeance  of  God,  lo  destroy  any 
true  members  of  this  covenant. 


THIRD    COVENANT. 


We  have  already  observed  many  things  on  this 
covenant.  I  think  the  true  calculation  is  given  in 
another  place.  His  citations  from  scripture  to 
prove  thi«  a  distinct  covenant,  equally  apply  to 
his  fifth  covenant.     Aware  of  this,  he  resorts  to  his 


106  BAPTISM. 

usual  plan  of  composing  such  scripture  as  will 
answer  his  purpose;  he  cites  Luke,  1.  72.  'To 
perform  the  mercy  promised  unto  our  Fathers, 
and  to  remember  his  holy  covenant.'  He  found  it 
would  not  do,  to  have  the  passage  so  stated,  be- 
cause the  fact  would  then  have  appeared,  that  Ze- 
charias  was  acknowledging  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision; called  by  Mr.  C.  a  national  covenant. 
He  therefore  strikes  out  the  words  unto  the  fathers 
and  inserts  the  words  By  the  Father — such  a  plan 
is  indeed  novel,  in  the  christian  world — and 
would,  in  any  other  writer,  be  intolerable,  but  with 
Mr.  C.  it  is  not  unusual.* 

FOURTH  COVENANT, 

Called  the  covenant  of  circumcisim. 


Because  circumcision,  was  now  enjoined,  as  a 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace;  on  this  covenant  we 
have  already  spoken  at  length.  Mr.  C.  gives  you 
his  new  system  on  tins  covenant.  P.  165.  I  shall 
present  the  reader  with  some  amendments  to  his 
view  of  this  covenant. 

*When  I  read  this  passage  in  Mr.  C.  I  instantly 
turned  to  the  errata — but  found  no  correction;  I 
then  doubted  not,  but  we  should  have  it  corrected 
in  his  second  edition — but  was  again  dispppoint- 
ed:his  followers,  took  it  for  scripture.  Hi-.d  he 
even  attempted  to  prove,  that  the  original  words 
admitted  of  the  corrections,  then  it  might  have 
passed  along  with  some  of  his  dipping  amend- 
menls;  but  no — we  must  take  it  for  scripture,  just 
because  Mr.  C,  says  so. 


BAPTISM.  107 

1st.  'It  was  confined'  to  Christ's  family 'alone' 
consisting  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Circumcision 
was  now  revealed,  as  the  seal  of  this  covenant. 

2nd.  Spiritual  'connection  with  Abraham,  was 
the  ground  of  claim  or  interest  in  it,'which  con- 
nection is  obtained  by  union  to  Christ.  'If  ye  be 
Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed.' 

3rd.  That  God  the  Son  'would  stand  in  a  par- 
ticular relation  to  this  family,  reign  over  them  as 
king,  protect  them  by  his  providence,'  and  bless 
them  by  his  glorious  gospel  and  its  ordinan- 
ces. 

4th  'It  was  unconditional.  The  enjoyment  of 
all  these  blessings,  depended  upon,'  the  obedience 
of  Christ  alone,  and  although  they  should  break 
this  covenant  by  their  sins,  he  would  'visit  their 
faults  with  rods,  their  sins  with  chastisement;  but 
his   loving  kindnes  he  would  not  take  from  them.' 

5th.  It  was  a  covenant,  the  visible  sign,  or  seal 
of  which  was  in  their  flesh,  as  a  sign  of  an  ever- 
lasting covenant. 

FIFTH  COVEKAJSTJ 

The  covenant  made  icith  all  Israel  at  Sinai. 


The  particular  character  of  the  revelation  of  the 
covenant  of  Grace  was; 

1st.  That  it  was  the  accomplishment  of  the  pro- 
mise 'of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,'  mentioned 
in  the  17  chap,  of  Gen. and  also  of  the  covenant 
confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ  by  sacrifice, 
mentioned  in  the  15th  of  Genesis  and  also  of  the 
first  revelation  made  of  this  same  covenant,  Gene- 
sis 12,  when  .Abraham  was  first  called  outofUr. 


108  BAPTISM. 

of  the  Chaldees.  It  was  the  visible  accomplish- 
ment of  a  promise,  made  in  eacl)  of  these  cov- 
enants. But  most  of  all,  the  literal  accomplish- 
ment of  a  prophecy,  made  by  God  to  Abraham,  of 
the  sorrows  of  his  seed,  and  their  deliverance.  'A.>d 
that  nation,  whom  they  shall  serve  w^ill  I  judge,  and 
afterwards  shjill  they  come  out  with  great  sub- 
stance' Gen.  15. 14. 

2nd.  Like  every  other  revelation  of  this  cov- 
enant, it  was  unconditional.  This  was  evident 
from  the  manner  in  which  it  was  prefaced.  Ex.  20. 
2:  'I  am  t!ie  Lord  thy  God,  who  have  brought 
thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of 
bondage.'  The  people  all  publicly  consenting 
to  this  covenant,  made  it  very  evidently  a  covenant 
of  duty.  Ex.  19.  8.  'AH  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken 
will  we  do."* 

3rd.  This  covenant,  only  in  part,  was  written 
upon  two  tables  ofstone,  called  by  the  apostle  Paul, 
Heb.  9.  4.  'The  tables  of  the  covenant;  in  which 
covenant  we  may  safely  include  all  the  revelations 
made  at  Sinai,  which  comprehended  the  revela- 
tion of  the  judicial,  cereu:!onial,  and  moral  laws, 

"^Every  time  of  the  particular  revelation  of  this 
covenant  to  the  church,  it  became  a  covenant  of 
duty. — The  church  could  never  engage  in  a  co- 
venant of  duty,  without  a  revelation  of  the  cove- 
nant of  Grace — because  this  is  the  proper  founda- 
tion of  a  covenant  of  duty,  ^he  covenant  of 
grace  contains  the  privilege/and  duty  of  the 
church;  a  covenant  of  duty,  is  the  engagement  of 
the  church,  to  receive  these  by  faith,  to  make  a 
public  profession  of  the  same,  and  to  have  a  life, 
correspondent  to  the  obligations:  this  is  all  Sece- 
ders  mean  by  covenanting. 


BAPTISM.  109 

vogether  with  all   the  promises    there   mentioned. 

4th,  The  laws  of  this  covenant  were  nunrie- 
rous,  and  perhaps  it  was  the  fullest  revelation,  ever 
made  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  at  any  one  time  to 
the  church.  Christ's  office  as  a  priest,  was  syste- 
maticaJly  shewn  in  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  and  his 
kingly  government,  in  the  revelations  of  the  par- 
ticular laws  by  which  the  church  was  to  be  gov- 
erned. 

5Lh.  The  Sinai  revelation  of  this  covenant,  con- 
tained both  promises  and  commands,  and  these 
promises,  like  those  formerly  made,  contained 
blessings,  both  temporal  and  spiritual,  unconditi- 
onally given.* 

6th.  This  covenant  was  read,  as  were  all  the 
formerrev*lations  of  it,  in  the  audience  of  all  the 
Jewish  church.  To  prove  that  this  was  the  cov- 
venant  of  grace,  the  promises  of  which  in  due 
time,  would  be  confirmed  by  the  death  of  Christ, 
the  testator,  immediately  afier  the  revelation  of  it, 
sacrifice  was  offered,  and  after  taking  the  blood 
of  the  sacrifice,  this  book  containing  the  covenant 
was  sprinkled,  to  intimate  the  bloody  confirmation 
it  should  receive,  the  people  was  also  sprinkled, 
to  intimate  that  the  same  death,  would  be  the  at- 
tonement  of  their  sins.  This  decleration  was 
made.  'This  is  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  which 
God  hath  enjoined  unto  you.'  Heb.  9.  20,  com- 
pared with  Ex.  24.  8. 

SIXTH    COVENANT. 

This  covenant  was  a  part    of  that  revelation 

*lt  was  against  that  part  of  this  covenant, 
which  was  written  on  tables  of  stone,  that  Mr.  C. 
a  few  years  ago  wrote  a  phamphlet. 


no  BAPTISM. 

made  at.  Mount  Sinai,  in  which  the  eternal  priest- 
hood, of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  typically  con- 
fined to  Aaron  and  his  sons  in  succession,  until  the 
comingof  the  antitype.  This  priesthood  differed 
from  the  Melehisedec  priesthood,  in  that  it  was  con- 
fined solely  to  the  family  of  A-eron.  The  continu- 
ation of  this  priesthood,  depending  upon  the  living 
successors  of  Aaron's  sons,  rendered  it  not  only 
a  changeable,  but  uncertain  priesthood;  in  these 
respects  it  was  far  inferior  to  the  prioslhood.  of 
Melehisedec,  for  his  priesthood,  not  depending  ei- 
their  upon  the  standing  of  his  predecessors  oi 
successors,  was  an  urxhangeable  pi'iesthood. 

Owing,  liowever  to  the  bravery,  and  particular 
fidelity  of  Phineas,  one  of  the  sons  of  Aaron.  Tliis 
covenant  was  revealed  in  the  strongest  terms. 
Number.  25.12,  13.  'Wherefore  say,  behold,  I 
give  unto  him  my  covenant  of  peace,  and  he  shall 
have  it,  and  his  seed  after  him,  even  the  covenant 
of  an  everlasting  priesthood.' 

We  shall  mention  a  few  things  in  a  great  mea- 
sure, peculiar  to  this  part  oi  the  revelation  of  the 
covenant  of  grace. 

1st.  That  it  was  a  soverign  act  of  the  Almighty, 
to  appoint  Christ  fo  tiie  office  of  Priest,  or  Aaron 
to  be  a  Priest  typically  to  represent  him. 

2nd.  The  divine  appointment,  confering  the 
priesthood  upon  Aaron,  is  called  the  covenant  of 
peace,  because  the  sacrifices  he  was  ordained  to 
offer,  represented  the  great  High  Priest,  shedding 
his  blood  to  obtain  eternal  peace. 

3rd.  This  revelation  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
was  like  every  other  revelation  of  it,  'uncondition- 
al,' as  it  respected  any  thing  to  be  performed  by 
typical  persons. 

4th.  The  promises  of  this  covenant  were,  by 


BAPTISM.  ill 

God's  word,  confirmed  to  Aaron  ^nd  his  son?, 
that  Ihey  should  hold  this  typical  priesthood,  and 
coiifirnied  to  the  church,  that  they  should  have  an 
everlasting  priesthood. 

5th.  It  was  called  an  everlasting  priesthood, 
because  it  was  to  remain  eternally  with  the 
church.  1st.  Typically:  2nd.  Rnaliy  in  Christ 
himself,  who  is  called  in  Psal.  110,  'A  priest  forever' 
and  because,  'HE  ever  liveth  to  make  intercessi- 
on.' 

Gth.  In  this  official  character  of  the  priesthood, 
the  laws  regulating  the  particular  duties  of  the 
office,  were  not  seperate  from,  but  essentially  con- 
nected with  the  office  of  this  typical  priesthood. 

7ih.  In  the  laws  regulating  the  ordination,  and 
duties  of  the  High  priest,  we  have  an  awful  warn- 
ing of  the  danger,  of  any  person  taking  this  office 
unto  himself,  such  as  independants — self  called 
ministers  &c.  'No  man  taketh  this  office  unto 
hin^self.  except  he  that  is  called,  as  was  Aaron.' 

SFVENTH  COVENANT. 

^.Of'Royaltxj  of  David.'' 

Of  this  covenant  we  have  a  full  account  in  the 
Isl.  and  2nd.  books  of  Samuel.  The  book  of  Psal. 
&c.  The  peculiarities  of  this  revelatiofi  of  the 
covenai»t  of  grace  are: 

1st:  That  it  was  a  sovereign  act  of  God  to  ap- 
point Ciirist  his 'king  in  the  holy  hill  ofZion'  or 
David  a  king  to  typify  him. 

2nd.  The  temporal  throne  and  sceptre  were 
promised  to  David,  as  a  representation  of  the 
throne  and  sceptre  which  eternally  belonged  to 
Christ. 


1 12  BAPTISM. 

3rd.  This  covenant  might  be  broken  by  Bavid, 
or  any  of  his  typical  successors,  but  could  not  by 
tlie  great  antitype. 

4th.  It  was  all  pron^ises  and  conamands.  Its 
blessings  were  temporal  and  spiritual,  there  was 
promised  a  throne,  a  sceptre,  a  kingdom,  all  of 
which  were  to  be  typical,  until  the  coming  of  the 
root,  and  offspring  of  David. 

5th.  There  was  no  particular  necessity  for  any 
separate  seal  to  this  revelation  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  seeing  that  circuJiQcision,  and  t!ie  passover, 
were  the  seals  of  all  ihe  itenrs  contained  in  this 
covenant. 

6ih.  This  continues  eternally.  The  sceptre  was 
held  by  typical  king-',  until  the  coming  of  Christ: 
when  he  lifted  the  Aiiling  sceptic  of  David,  ne- 
ver to  return  it  to  any  typical  -king,  but  hold  i' 
liimself  and  reign  ibrcver.* 

We  have  now  travelled  through  Mr.  C's  cov- 
enants, and  had  he  taken  a  little  more  leisure, 
and  read  his  Bible  with  more  attention,  he  might 
have  greatly  increased  the  size  of  his  book  with 
covenants.  His  seven  are  but  a  brief  specimen  of 
his  power  of  invention,  hundreds  might  have 
been  added  upon  the  same  principle,  nay  thou- 
sands; at  least  a  distinct  covefiant  for  every  peri- 
od in  the  scriptures,  because   he   evidently  suppo- 

*  It  is  evident  to  the  reader,  that  we  have  at- 
tempted to  make  some  amendments  on  Mr.  Co  - 
coveijants,  and  we  think  have  succeeded  in  re- 
ducing their  number  to  two.  We  confined  our- 
selves to  his  plan.  We  give  him  the  honor  of 
inventing  at  least  5  out  of  the  7.  JVIr.  C.  will  par- 
don me,  for  prefering  the  scripture  view  of  the 
subject  to  his. 


BAPTISM.  113 

ses  that  every  distinct,  revelation,  was  a  distinct 
covenant,  how  far  he  has  succeeded  I  shall  let 
readers  judge  for   themselves.    . 

It  is  also  evident  that  he  possesses  equal  ingenui- 
ty for  creating  conditions,  that  he  does  covenants, 
he  makes  every  ij\  that  he  finds  in  the  scriptures, 
a  condition,  but  not  having  as  great  a  supply  of  ^/'s 
on  hand,  as  he  had  of  covenants,  some  of  these  had 
to  come  out  unconditional. 

From  this  proposition,  as  now  established,  we 
shall  draw  a  few  conclusions,  we  think  now 
proved. 

FIRST    INFERENCE. 

That  variations  in  the  external  circumstances 
of  a  covenant  never  affect  its  being,  as  a  contract, 
and  that  the  only  difference  between  the  old  and 
Nevv  testament  covenants,  was, in  the  dispensation; 
and  therefore  there  was  but  one  covenant,  under 
both  dispensations. 

SECOND   COVENANT. 

That  the  relation  between  Abraham  and  the 
church,  \\;as  only  Spiritual,  that  in  this  sense  a- 
lone,  a  seed  was  promised  to  him,  and  tliat  with 
him,  God  made  but  one  covenant,  although  he  fre- 
quently renewed  the  same. 

THIRD    INFERENCE, 

That  the  church  is  one,  in  all  ages  of  the  woild, 
the  covenant  one,  and  the  Lord  one.   Any  righte- 
ous engagement  of  the  church,  is  binding  upon 
herself  in  any  future  period;  the  circumstances,  or 
L  3 


114  BAPTISM 

any  of  the  rtulies  being  the  s\n\p,  and  that  we 
mean  no  more  wheii  ;ve  say,  liiat  the  covenant  of 
our  spiritual  ancestors  is  binding  upon  posterity. 

FOURTH    INFERENCE. 

That  this  covenant  is  not  entailed  by  natural 
relation.  That  a  savage  under  this  dispensation 
embracing  the  christian  rehgion  by  faith,  is,  as 
true  a  cliiid  of  Abraham,  as  Isaac  wasjand  on  the 
contrary  a  natural  son  of  Abraham,  v^^as  no  more 
one  of  his  children  by  covenant,  if  in  a  state  of 
nature,  than  a  savage  who  is  yet  in  tiiat  state.* 

ill.  PROPOSITION. 

That  circumcision  was  a  sacramental  seal  of 
the  covenant  of  grace,  as  administered  under  the 
Old  testament,  and,  to  the  heirs  of  that  dispensa- 

*By  those  who  oppose  the  binding  obligations 
of  covenants  upon  posterity,  it  is  sometimes  ask- 
ed; how  do  we  know  that  we  are  the  natural 
posterity  of  those  who  covenanted?  The  ques- 
tion is  answered  above. — That  it  matters  not  whe- 
ther we  are  the  natural  posterity,  or  not.  A  child 
adopted  into  a  family,  is  as  subject  to  the  laws 
and  as  really  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  fa- 
.mily,  as  if  he  had  been  born  in  it.  Heathens,  are 
Abraham's  family,  the  covenant  secured  them  tO' 
him  for  a  seed,  although  no  natural  relation  ex- 
isted. We  are  therefore  bound  to  all  th«  moral  du- 
ties of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  by  faith  en- 
titled.  to  all  its  privileges.  This  note  is  not  de- 
signed for  Mr.  C.  Of  this  duty  he  does  not  appear 
to  understand  the  least  principle. 


BAPTISM.  115 

t(on,if  was  a  seal  of  all  the  Gospel  promises,  made 
to  them  by  their  Lord;  and  was  therefore  itself  a 
gospel  ordinance. 

I  define  circumcision'  to  be,  a  sacramenlal  seal 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  administered  under 
the  Old  testament  dispensation;  wherein,  by  cut- 
ting off  the  foreskin,  from,  Ihe  male  infant,  or 
male  adult;  they  were  introduced  into  the 
church  of  Christ;  and  their  beuig  cut  off  from  the 
law,  as  a  covenant  of  works,  and  from  the  rela- 
tion to  the  first  Adam  as  their  foederal  head;  and  ^ 
all  the  effects  of  that  relation  through  Christ,  was 
thereby,  sij^nedj  sealed  and  signified. 

We  shall  now  endeavour  to  establish  our  pro- 
position by  proving  its  different  parts. — 

1st.  It  was  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  Grace. 
That  the  covenant  to  which  it  was  appended  was 
the  covenant  of  grace,  we  think  is  already  shewn 
at  length,  but  more  is  necessary  oh  this  point  of 
the  subject;  we  observe,  first;  That  the  apostle 
so  explains  it,  Rora.  4.  11.  'And  he  received  the 
sign  of  circumcision;  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  faith  which  Ac  /?a(i,  yet  being. uncircumcis- 
ed;  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that 
believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcised;  that 
righteousness  might  be  imputed  to  them  also.' 

2nd  It  is  granted,  that  it  was  a  seal  of  that  co- 
venant; God  made  with  Abraham,  mentioned  in 
the  17.  chaptet  of  Genesis;  called  the  covenant 
of  circumcision;  but  the  blessings  there  designat- 
ed we  have  proved  to  belong  to  the  covenant  of 
Grace  alone;  therefore  circumGision  was  a  seal  of 
the  covenantof  Grace. 

3rd.  The  covenant  of  grace  is  the  testament^  of 
which  Christ  Jesus  is  the  testator,  and  the  church 
the  alone  heir,  then  if  by  circumcision  they  were 


116  BAPTISM. 

initiated  into  this  body,  and  thereby  constituted 
the  visible  heirs  of  this  covenant,  it  follows  that 
circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  Grace, 
but  the  former  is  true,  Gen.  17.  'And  the  uncir- 
cumcJsed  man  child  whose,  whose  flesh  of  his  fore- 
fikin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off 
from  his  people.'  In  this  passage,  the  following 
doctrine  is  fairly  included,  that  if  the  omision  cf 
this  rite  was  a  public  declaration,  that  there  was 
no  relation  subsisting  between  them  and  the 
church,  then  the  receiving  of  it  was  a  public  pro- 
fession of  the  union.  The  truth  of  this  doctrine 
was  felt  by  Moses  in  his  return  frDm  the  wilder- 
ness, to  join  his  fellow  professors,  then  in  bond- 
age in  Egypt.  Ex.  4.  24,  25,  'And  it  come  to  pass 
by  the  way  in  the  inn,  that  the  Lord  met  him,  and 
sought  to  kill  him.  Then  Zepporah  took  a  sharp 
stone,  and  cut  off  the  foreskin  of  her  son  and  cast- 
it  at  his  feet,  and  said,  surely  a  bloody  husband 
"ert  thou  to  me.'* 

The  conclusion  is  true  that  circumcision  .is  a 
seal -of  the  covenant  of  Grace. 

*This  is  an  awful  v/arning  to  Parents  who 
through  carelessness  or  othewise.  neglect  the  de- 
dication of  their  children  to  God,  in  baptism — It 
fared  with  Moses  as  it  sometimes  does  with  good 
people,  in  bad  company,  they  forget  and  even  be- 
come neglectful  of  their  duty,  whith  nearly  cost 
him.  his  life.  His  wife  who  had  been  some  kind 
of  Baptist,  was  enraged  at  this  dedication  of  her 
child,  like  Mr.  C. — She  saw  no  necessity  for  it, 
like  him,  she  could  not  see  how  it  would  make 
her  sou  any  better,  she  merely  done  it  \.o  save  her 
husband's  life.  Had  she  lived  at  this  time,  she 
would  have  had  many  to  have  agreed  with  her. 


BAPTISM.  117 

Circumcision  ceased  in  the  manner  of  its  ad- 
ministration, with  that  dispensation,  because  all 
the  ordinances  of  Old  testament,  wore  the  same 
character:  uniformity  and  consistency,  is  the  cha- 
racter of  all  Divine  ordinances — they  must  all  be 
adopted  to  the  dispensation  under  which  they  are 
administered.  The  change  of  dispensation  will, 
therefore  require  a  change  of  all  the  ordinances. 
This  observation  is  equally  true,  both  as  it  re- 
spects those  rites,  which  were  to  be  entirely  abol- 
ished, and  those  which  only  underwent  an  exter- 
nal- change.  Sacrifices  which  had  no  other,  than 
a  typical  existence,  of  course,  ceased  to  be  when 
the  Great  antitype  was  offered,  but  the  office  of  the 
ministry,  which  in  general  had  a  miraculous  ap- 
j)ointment,  under  the  New  testament,  exists  by  re- 
gular ordination. 

It  was  ever  necessary,  that' the  covenant  of 
(jJrace  should  have  a  seal;  under  the  former  ad- 
ministration of  it,  a  seal  suited  lo  that  time,  was 
instituted:  the  same  necessity  of  it  continues,  the 
seal  js  accordingly  varied  to  suit  the  present  dis- 
pensation of  Grace. 

That  it  was  a  Gospel  ordinance,  will  appear  by 
observing, 

1st.  That  regeneration  was  one  of  the  leading 
privileges  emblematicHJly  set  furth  in  this  rite. 
Deut.  10.  16.  'Circumcise  therefore  the  foreskin, 
of.your  heart,  and.  be  no  mtire  stiff-necked.  Also 
chap.  30.  6.  'Aiid  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circum- 
cise thine  heart,  and  the  henrt  of  thy  seed,  to  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  iieart,  and  with  all 
thy  souK  that  thou  mnyest  live.'  So  also  the  New 
testament  writers  undtrUood  it.  col.  2.  11.  'In 
whom  also,  ye  are  circumcised,  with  the  circum- 
cision made   without' bands,  in  putting  off  the  bo- 


118  BAPTISM. 

dy  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of 

2nd.  That  this  seal  was  confined  to  a  holy  seed. 
For  while  it  was  the  privilege'  of  his  servants  and 
also  of  all  his  children  to  receive  the  administra- 
tion of  this  rite,  yet  with  none  of  these  was  it  to  be 
continued  as  a  divine  ordinance,  but  with  Isaac. 
The  reason  why  the  other  members  of  his  family 
were  entitled  to  this  privilege,  was  because  they 
were  raised  according  to,  the  laws  of  the  covenant 
of  Grace,  possessed  its  privilege?,  and  thereby  be- 
came entitled  to  its  seal;  this  is  ampiy  taugh*; 
when  God  speaks  of  Abraham.  Gen,  18.  19.  'For 
I  know  him  that  he  will  command  his  children 
and  hi?  household  after  him,  and  they  shall  keep 
the  way  of  Ihe  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment; 
that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham,  that 
which  he  hath  spok^en.'* 

*It  appears  that  the  Arabs  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham, by  Ishmael,  yet  circumcise,  with  all  the 
punctuality  of  the  Jews,  with  this  difference,  that 
indeed  of  the  eighth  day,  they  perform  it,  on  the 
eighth  year.  This  unhappily  for  the  Baptist,  cuts 
off' their  position  that  circumcision  was  a  national 
distinction,  because  it  does  not  distinguish  them 
from  the  Jews.  Mr.  Riley  our  fellow  citizen,  ob- 
serves that  the  Arabs  in  the  deserts  circumcise  to 
prevent  disease.  But  however  sccurat^e  he  is  in 
most  of  his  observations,  he  is  mistaken  in  this;- 
because  Doctor  Parks  found  fhem  observmg  the 
same  rite  <in  Aff'rica,  among  f^etlled  nations,  who 
did  not  attend  to  it,  it  is  also  found  that  the  Arabs 
circumcise  in  Asia  and  in  Europe,  where  they 
live  among  christian  nations,  who  pay  no  attention 
(o  circumqifion. 


BAPTISM.  119 

I  infer  that  it  wa'S  to  be  confined  to  his  posterity 
by  Isaac  in  particular,  not  only  from  the  fact  as  it 
afterwards  appeared,  but  also  from  the  covenant 
being  confirmed  with  his  seed  by  Isaac  at  the 
time  circumcision  was  instituting.  Gen.  17,  19, 
'and  God  said  SaraJi  thy  wife  shall  bear  thee  a 
son  indeed;  and  thou  shalt  call  his  name  Isaac:  and 
I  will  establish  my  covenant  with  him,  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant  and  with  his  seed  after  him. 
Why  was  this  secured  to  Isaac?  It  was  because 
he  was  a  son;  not  of  the 'flesh;  but  of  promise.' 
They  who  are  the  childien. of  the  flesh,  these  are 
not  the  children  of  God  but  the  children  of  the 
promise  are  counted  for  the  seed.'  Baptists  grant 
that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  did  secure  a 
seed;  let  them  now  submit  to  the  divine  dilinitiofi 
of  that  seed  just  quoted,  and  there  can  remain  no 
dispute.  They  were  to  be  a  spiritual  seed— the 
children  of  God.' 

3rd.  The  very  covenant  of  which  circumcision 
is  the  acknowledged  seal,  secured  the  continua- 
tion and  spread  of  the  everlasting  gospel,  Gen.  19 
7,  'and  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  thee 
and  me,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  genera- 
tions, for  an  eveiiasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God 
unto  thee,  ai^  thy  seed  after  thee.'  We  find  A 
similar  declaration  made  from  Mt.  Sinai.  'I  am  the 
Lord  your  God.'  So  in  the  New  testament  we 
have  it  recorded  of  Thomas,  that  he  expressed  his 
faith|appropriating  this  precise  promise  with  others 
ofthe  same  import.  "My  Lord  and  my  God."  I 
would  now  ask  the  weakest  believer,  or  even  one 
of  Mr.  C's.  followers  would  ihey  desire  a  more 
comfortable  gospel  promise,  than  this  mentioned 
in  Gen.  17.  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  thy 
seed  after  thee!    The  attempts  of  men  weaken  or 


120  BAPTISM. 

destroy  Gospel  promises  should  bj  all  good  people, 
be  opposed,  because  they  '-ire  llie  only  support  of  a 
believer  during  the  tinr'C  he  is  a  strafger  and  a 
pilgrim  on  this  earth.  Psnl.  119.  45  50.  'Remem- 
ber the  word  unto  thy  servf.nij\ipon  which  thou  hast 
caused  me  to  hope.  This  is  my  comfort  in  my 
affliction:  for  tiiy  word  hath  quickened  me.' 
Faith  can  only  act  upon  promises  accoiding  to 
their  true  interest.  But  if  the  promise  made  to 
Abraham  respected  on/y  an  earthly  Canaan,  then 
no  saint  dare  apply  it  to  spiritual  purposes  but  the 
scripture  affords  as  ffbundant  examples  of  be- 
lievers, having  so  applied  it,  it  follows  that  the 
true  interest  of  that  promise  was  gospej  blessings, 
presented  to  believers  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and 
by  them  eternally  enjoyed. 

But  I  say  also,  that  it  secured  the  spread  of  the 
gospel  amongst  the  nations  of  the  earth,  read  v.  6: 
'and  I  will  make  these  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I 
will  make  nations  of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out 
of  thee.'  By  which,  we  cannot  suppose,  is  to  be 
iinderstood,  the  royal  children  of  Edom,  Arabian 
kings,  or  the  nations  they  governed,  because  Mr. 
C.  tells  us  that  this  covenant,  secured  the  land  of 
Canaan  for  n  perpetual  possession.  Page  165. 
Yet  let  the  reader  observe  that  Abraham's  posteri- 
ty by  Jacob  his  grand  son,  was  the  only  nation  of 
Abraham's  natural  posterity,  that  inhabited  the 
land  of  Canaan.  Now  although  this  might  be  the 
•accomplishment  of  the  promise  as  it  respected' 
kings,  it  cannot  be  so  as  it  respected  nations,  the 
nation  was  but  one.  Mr.  C's  definition  compells 
him  to  acknowledge  that  this  promise  made  ii\the 
covenant  of  circimcision,  could  have  no  full  ac- 
complishment, until  the  nations  of  the  earth  were, 
by  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  born  to  Abraham;  un- 


BAPTISM.  131 

til  Kings  should  become  the  nursing  fathers,  and 
Queen's  the  nursing  mothers  of  the  church.'* 

For  my  part  I  cannot  see  it  to  be  a  blessing,  or 
yet  can  I  see  the  necessity  of  a  seal  to  a  contract, 
which  only  secures  a  large,  rude,  and  wicked  pos- 
terity to  any  man.  It  is  the  possession  of  the  gos- 
pel and  its  blessings,  that  truly  exalteth  a  nation. 
It  is  no  comfort  to  parents,  surely,  to  have  a  nu- 
merous family;  but  to  be  a  parent  of  a  large  and 
religious  family  is  indeed  a  blessing — In  this  re- 
spect Abraham  felt  as  other  religious  parents 
would.  Was  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  true,  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcision  could  have  aflbrded  no 
comfort  to  a  man  so  Godly  as  Abraham. 

4th.  I  ask,  why  make  a  distinct  covenant  with 
Abraham,  in  order  to  put  him  in  possession  of  a 
numerous  family,  and  temporal  blessings  only? 
His  family,  should  you  take  all  his  natural  seed, 
were  as  much  less  than  the  family  of  Noah,  as  the 
part  is  less  than  the  whole;  yet  the  covenant  God 
made  with  Noah,  granted  by  Mr.  C.  and  all  the 
Baptists,  secured  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  all  the 
temporal  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 
Was  it  impossible  for  Abraham  or  his  seed,  to 
plead   any   promise  of  that  covenant?    if  not,  by 

*  If  Mr.  C.  should  attempt  to  make  this  pitiful 
excuse,  from  this  just  conclusion,  that  although 
this  promise  was  mentioned  in  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,  it  did  not  belong  to  it;  I  would  re- 
ply that  all  the  items  of  a  covenant,  are  always 
niade  out,  before  it  is  subscribed  and  sealed.  In 
like  manner,  after  the  promises  of  this  covenant 
are  mentioned  by  God,  he  appends  the  seal  of  cir- 
cumcision, which,  in  every  instance  of  contracts, 
is  the  security  of  the  whole  bontJ. 
M 


122  BAPTISM. 

what  were  they  excluded?  or  why  make  a  separate 
covenant  for  that  purpose? 

5th.  That  this  was  a  gospel  ordinance  appears 
from  the  acknowledged  requisition  of  Mr.  C.  *If 
ye  be  willing  and  obedient.'  Although  the  rea- 
son, which  made  Mr.  C.  make  this  the  entitling 
condition  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  more 
than  to  any  ether  covenant,  no  one  can  tell;  yet  we 
shall  shew  that  this  concession  forces  him  to  yield 
the  point.  Christians  will  generally  unite  with 
me  in  declaring,  that  there  is  no  obedience  since  . 
the  fall  of  man,  without  obeying  this  command: 
'This  is  the  command  of  God  that  ye  believe  on 
his  son;' or  will  God  ever  actept  obedience^  per- 
formed by  an  unbeliever  as  such." 

From  the  sentiments  of  Baptists  respecting  the 
Old  testament  dispensation,  they  may  not  concede 
this.  Then  let  us,  in  order  to  try  this  obedience, 
use  tiie  language  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 
'I  will  be  thy  God,  and  the  God  of  thy  seed ;'  or  the 
preface  to  the  ten  commandments.  'I  am  the  Lord 
your  God.'  It  will  be  conceded,  that  every  act  of 
obedience  required  by  that  covenant,  demanded 
the  acknowledgment  of  this  first  principle;  all  the 
obedience  required,  was  to  be  performed  to  God. 
as  their  God.  But  the  unbeliever  could  never 
render  this  kind  of  obedience,  by  any  act,  al- 
though the  matter  of  the  act  is  good,  yet  he  re- 
jects God.  Can  any  one,  therefore,  believe  Mr.  C. 
who  supposes  that  obedience  may  be  required  in 
any  covenant  of  which  God  is  one  party,  and  fallen 
man  the  other,  which  obedience  demands  eternal 
destruction  from  the  presence  of  God;  for  such  is 
the  character  of  the  best  works  of  the  natural'man. 
But  where  is  faith,  the  true  principle  of  this  obe- 
dience to  be  obtained?    In  no  other  place,  than 


BAPTISM.  123 

m  the  gospel  of  peace.  But  Mr,  C.  concedes  that 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  required  sucli  obe- 
dierrce  as  God  would  accept.  Therefore,  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcision,  vvhile  its  laws  required  obe- 
dience, its  promises  presented  ^proper  qualifica- 
tions for  rendering  that  obedience  acceptable;  but 
of  these,  circumcisions  was  the  seal,  therefore  it 
was  the  seal  of  the  promises  of  the  everlasting  gos- 
pel. 

That  circumcision  was  instituted  by  Christ  to  be 
a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  Grace,  is  the  last  thing 
in  the  proposition  to  be  proved. 

Without  refering  my  readers  tea  vast  pile  of 
old  Dictionaries,  upon  the  meaning  of  the  word 
seal^  we  shall  just  take  the  common  acceptance 
of  this  word  as  used  in  scripture  and  in  the  com- 
mon transactions  of  life,  and  define  it  ta  be  a 
sign  affixed  to  a  bond,  contract,  or  covenant,  as  a  eon" 
Jirmation  of  the  things  contained  in  the  instrument. 
Whatever  this  mark  may  be  in  civil  life,  each  na- 
tion has  the  liberty  of  determining.  In  like  manner, 
whatever  mark  or  sign  the  head  of  the  church  may 
appoint,  his  subjects  have  a  right  to  submit,  whe- 
ther it  be  a  mark  on  the  finger  or  any  other  mem- 
ber of  the   body,*   or   the   application   of  water 

*Mr.  C.  makes  some  very  profane  jests  on  this 
subject,  which  I  think  too  rude  to  transcribe;  any 
human  institution,  however  wrong,  will  receive 
modest  treatment  from  a  polite  writer;  but  how 
carefully  should  we  speak,  of  an  ordinance  ap- 
pointed  by  Christ  Jesus  king  and  head  of  the 
church:  although,  as  Mr.  C.  supposes,  the  ordi- 
nance was  civil  and  only  secured  temporal  bless- 
ings, yet  it  is  Divine,  and  merits  all  the  reverence 
of  any  other  ordinance, 


124  BAPTISM. 

eating  of  bread  or  drinking  of  wine,  no  nnatter,  HE 
has  liberty  of  choosing',    we  are  bound  to  submit. 

The  dispute  now  is,  was  circumcision  a  sign  or 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace?  I  reply  thati  am 
certain  it  was,  because  the  covenant  to  which  it 
was  appended,  did  contain  spiritual  blessings,  the 
piioperty  of  that  covenant  alone,  and  which  I 
think  I  have  proven  at  length,  we  shall  only  add 
one  scripjure  passage  upon  the  subject.  Paul 
speaking  of  Abraham  declares  Rom.  4.  11:  'He 
received  the  sign  of  circumcison,  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  faith,  which  he  had,  being  yet 
uncircumcised,  that  righteousness  might  be  imput- 
ed to  them  also.'  This  passage  as  it  stands,  plainly 
decides  the  controversy;  because, 

Ist.  It  was  a  seal  of  tlie  righteousness  of  faitii 
to  Abraham.  Is  this  righteousness,  a  tempoial 
blessing,  a  fruit  that  grows  in  the  land  of  Canaan? 
Will  Mr.  C.  answer  in  the  affirmative?  Is  there 
any  other  righteousness  than  the  righteousness  ^of 
Christ,  presented  as  the  ground  of  acceptance  witfi 
God?  No  Calvanist  will  reply  in  the  affirmative. 
But  the  apostle  in  order  to  prevent  any  niciiphysi- 
cal  misconstruction,  designates  the  righteousness 
of  which  he  speaks;  it  was  that  which  the  faith  of 
Abraham  received,  and  whicli  alone  could  have 
been  presented  to  him  in  the  everlasting  gospel. 
But  this  righteousness  is  the  sum  of  all  the  bless- 
ings in  the  covenant  of  grace;  no  other  blessing 
of  that  covenant  could  have  been  mentioned,  that 
would  have  included  as  much.  But  of  this  right- 
eousness the  apostle  declares  circumcision  was 
the  seal. 

2nd.  That  no  ground  of  dpubt,  might  be  left, 
he  intimates  that  the  righteousness  of  which  he 
speaks,  upon  which  the  faith  of  Abraham  rested, 


BAPTISM.  125 

was  the  same  that  is  now  presented  to  believing 
heathens,  read  the  passage  again  and  you  will 
find,  that  the  righteousness  sealed  to  Abraham  was 
the  same  righteousness  which  is  imputed  to  those 
who  are  uncircumcised.  It  follows  by  the  most 
natui-al  consequence,  that. circumcision  was  a  seal 
of  tliat  righteousness  which  is  now  presented  to  us 
in  the  everlasting  gospel,  as  the  ground  of  our 
just i if] cation  and  acceptance  with  God. 

8rd.  Look  at  the  historical  facts  to  which  the 
apostle  evidently  alludes.  Abraham  had  firist  re- 
ceived the  promise,  as  Mr.  C.  grants,  mentioned  in 
.Gen.  12,  afterwards  he  had  the  same  confirmed 
by  sacrifice  chap.  15.  But  in  the  17th.  chap,  he 
received  a  more  full  revelation  of  the  blessings  of 
the  same  covenant.  All  this  revelation  was  made 
prior  to  the  affixing  of  any  permanant  seal.  A- 
mong  other  revelations  made  before  this  institu- 
tion, this  was  one,  that  God  would  multiply  his 
seed.  The  apostle  therefore  argues,  that  the  hea- 
thens, who,  vvi(-h  the  Jews,  are  his  seed,  were  in- 
cluded in  that  covenant;  now  of  all  these  promises 
circi'mcision  was  given  as  a  seal.  I  arji  persuad- 
ed that  such  is  the  evidence  of  this  passage  that 
no  honest^iind  can  prevent  the  conviction,  that 
circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  ..^ 

This  view  of  the  passage  startles  Mr.  C.  and. 
afraid  of  its  mortal  consequences  upon  his  sys- 
tem; he  thinks  it  best  to  deny  the  very  being  of 
seals  under  any  dispensation,  even  baptism,  and 
the  Lord's  supper. — P.  175.  This  is  .indeed,  a 
univepsal  disposal  of  the  doctrine  to  which  in  a 
little  we  shall  attend.  But  first  of  all,  be  attacks 
the  sentiments  of  the  apostle.  Rom.  4  11.  P.  17, 
18.  *I  know  of  no  passage,  more  evidently  a- 
M    2 


126  BAPTISM. 

'gainst  my  opponent;  for  it  goes  to  show,  that  cir- 
'cumcision  was  to  Abraham,  what  it  never  was, 
'nor  could  be  to  any  of  his  posterity.  Will 
'  ray  opponent  say,  that  circumcision  was  to  Ish- 
'  rnael,  to  Isaac,  or  to  any  of  the  infmt  otfspring  of 
'Abraham,  what  it  was  to  him?  Was  it  a  sign 
'  and  seal  to  Isaac,  or  Ishmael  of  a  righteousness 
'  which  they  previously  po<^se;ed.'  Now  reader, 
you  will  observe  sonne  neu)  doctrine, — Itis,  that  the 
same  ordinance,  precisely  the  same,  must  have 
different  meanings,  when  applied  to  different  per- 
sons. A  st^a!  affi^e'd  to  the  same  contract,  by  the 
same  Lord,  proposing  the  same  end;  yet  it  has  adif-. 
t'ercnt  meaning,  when  applied  to  different  sabjetts. 
Mr.  C. — you  will  again  look  your  dictionaries  for 
the  w:>rd  seal. 

What  did  circumcision  seal  to  Abraham,  dis- 
tinct from  that  which  it  sealed  to  other  subjects!* 
Mr.C.  replies,  'had  Ishmael  or  Isaac  a  righteous- 
ness which  they  previously  possessed.'     I  answer, 

1st.  In  order  righteously  to  administer  a  seal  of 
the  covenant  of  Grace,  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
person  to  whom  it  is  administered,  be  in  a  known 
«tate  of  grace;  otherwise  Judas,  or  Simon  Magus 
could  not  have  been    warrantably  baptised. 

3nd.  There  is  a  difference  between  making  a 
righteous  profession,  and  possessing  the  righteous- 
ness professed.  The  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ment of  circumcision  to  Ishraael  or  Isaac,  was  a ' 
legal  ground,  why  they  should  be  accounted  holy, 
or  righteous;  but  this  did  not  make  them  person- 
ally so.  .In  virtue  of  the  promise  made  to  Abra- 
ham, they  were  accounted  a  holy  seed.  'I  will  be- 
ihy  God,  and  the  God  of  thy  seed:'  But  circumci- 
sion was  a  seal  of  that  visible  relation;  as  really  to 
the  seed  of  Abraham,  as  to  himself,  for  without 


BAPTISM.  127 

any  change  of  expression,  or  variation'of  senti- 
ment,.he  is  said  to  be  both  the  God  of  Abraham 
and'of  his  seed.  I  know  of  no  blessing  promised 
1o  Abraham,  which  was  not  also  promised  to  his 
seed.  In  all  tho^^e  ble.^sings  promised  to  Abra- 
ham in  Gen.  17.  Abraham  and  his  seed,  stood  on 
the  same  covenant  footing,  and  therefore  the  same 
seal  was  equally  applied  to  both. 

Either  Ishtnael  or  Isaac,  were  as  fit  subjects  of 
the  righteousness  possessed  by  Abraham  as  he 
was  himself.  Any  infant  by  the  special  grace  of 
God,  may  be  regenerated  and  Justified,  and  there- 
by, may  be  made  a  partaker  of  that  righteousness, 
which  believers,  by  faith,  claim.  Mr.  C.  must 
either  agree  to  this,  or  believe  that  all  infants  are 
condemned,  for  without  this  righteousness,  neither 
infant,  nor  adult.JBhall  ever  see  heaven. 

Neither  activity  nor  consent  is  essentially  ne- 
cessary to  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness: because  regeneration  and  justification  are 
the  acts  of  another;  the  subject  is  passive;  on 
which  more  afterwards.  What  I  have  said  is  suf- 
ficient to  establish  the  assertion,  that  the  righte- 
ousness of  which  the  apostle  spoke  was  the  sariie  to 
both  Abraham  and  his  seed.  I  do  not  say,  all  the 
generations  of  his  seed:  but  all  his  seed  by  pro- 
mise, Ishmael,  Fsaac,  his  sons,  and  all  his  servants 
were  to  him  promised  blessings,  were  to  be  raised 
under  his  particular  inspection,  and  were  there- 
fore, fit  subjects  of  this  sacramental  seal.  But  in 
'Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called,'  and  therefore 
such  of  his  posterity  alone,  as  were  included  iu 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  were  in  their  gene- 
rations the  fit  subjects  of  this  rite.  Hence  it  was 
thjit  the  Edomites  and  Ishmaelites,  stood  in  no 


128  BAPTISM. 

other  covenant  relation  to  Abraham,  than  the  Ca- 
naanites    orMoabUes. 

The  revehttion.  of  this  circumstance,  that  Abra- 
ham possessiid  tliis  ritjliteousness  before  he  was 
circumcised,  which  Mr.  C.  takes  as  the  ground  of 
his  assertion,  offord  no  justification  to  his  opinion. 
Would  Mr.  C.  say,  that  all  the  Israelites  born  in 
the  wilderness,  during  the  forty  years  of  their  tra- 
vel, were  unbelievers?  I  think  none  will  say  so. 
But  I  observe  that  every  one  of  them  conyerted 
during  their  journey,  Abraham-like,  possessed  this 
righteousness  before  circuiTvcision;  it  was  not  un- 
til they  come  intg  the  land  of  Canaan,  any  of 
them  were  circumcistd,  that  were  born  in  the 
wilderness.  Joshua  5.  5.  .'Now  all  the  people  that 
come  out  were  circumcised,  but  all  the  people  that 
were  born  in  the  wilderness  by  the  way  as  they 
come  forth,  them  they  had  not  circujDcised.' 
Yet  Mr.  C.  asserts  that  circumcision  was  to  Abra- 
ham, what  it  never  was  to- any  of  his  posterity. 
But  all  his  posterity,  who  were  justitied  before 
they  were  circumcised,  had  the  blessing?  of  that 
covenant  scaled  to  them,  precisely  as  Abraham 
had;  but  the  states  of  persons  are  the  same,  and 
the  righteousneijs  the  same,  whether  it  be  subse- 
quent or  antecedent  to  circumcision.  A  person 
who  by  faith  was  a  partaker  of  this  righteousness, 
before  he  was  circuincised,  enjoyed  it  in  the  same 
sense,  he  did,  who  was  not  made  partaker  ofit- 
until  he  was  circumcised.  This  circumstance 
with  respect  to  the  time  of  being  justified,  is  the 
alone  ground  of  Mr.  C's  assertion:  yet  I  think 
the  intelligent  reader  will  say,  that  it  matters  not 
■when  Justification  takes  place;  that  the  righteous- 
ness to  'Abraham  and  his  seed  was  the  same,  al- 
though the  one  was  justified   antecedent  to  cir- 


BAPTISxM.  129 

cumcision,  and    the     other     subsequent     to    it. 

But  Mr.  Wo  reasoning  on  this  subject  (says  Mr. 
C.)  'is  a  sophism  of  the  first  magnitude;  because 
'  it  is  dra^ving  a  general  conclusion  from  a  parti- 
cular prieraise.'  I  reply,  that  my  conclusion  is  no 
more  general  than  my  premise;  because  Abraham 
engaged  to  the  duties  of  this  covenant,  as  the 
church,  or  as  the  fathcF  of  the  faithful.  There- 
fore that  which  may  be  predicated  of  Abraham 
sustaining  this  character,  may  also  be  predicated 
of  all  his  represented  seed. 

Indeed,  if  the  premise  of  my  argument  had  been 
particular,  it  would  have  cut  off,  the  chief  source 
of  all  the  comfort  of  the  church  ever  since;  for 
if  the  promise,  or  blessings  or  the  covenant,  had 
been  particularly  to  Abraham,  as  Mr.  C.  suppo- 
ses; then  none  of  his  spiritual  seed,  could  ever 
have  appropriated  these  promises  or  claimed 
these  blessings;  no  individual  could  vvarrantabiy 
claim  a  promise,  never  addressed  to  him.  Rea- 
der, view  the  difference  between  the  faith  of  A- 
braham's  seed,  and  Mr.  C's  opinion.  Ex.  32.  13. 
'Remember  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Israel,  to  whom 
thou  swearest  by  thine  own  self,  and  saidst  unto 
them,  I  will  multiply  your  seed  as  the  stars  of  hea- 
ven, and  all  this  land,  I  have  spoken  of,  will  I 
give  unto  your  seed,  and  they  shall  inherit  it  for- 
ever.' But  if  Abraham,  exclusively  had  been 
made  a  possessor  of  any  of  the  blessings  of  that 
covenant,  how  was  it  possible  for  the  Jews  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after  that  time,  to  claim 
the  blessings  made  to  him.  But  common  sense 
will  say,  that  every  part  of  a  testament,  covenant, 
or  contract  to  which  a  seal  is  affixed,  that  all  their 
items  are  equally  sealed.  But  the  apostle  in  the 
4th.  of  Rom.  only  mentions  one  of  these  items,  viz. 


130  BAPTISM. 

the  righteousness  which  Abraham  had  by  faith, 
which  was  sealed  to  him  in  his  circumcision;  this 
was,  therefore,  with  the  other  blessings  of  that  co- 
venant sealed  to  him,  and  by  the  reasoning  before, 
was  also  sealed  to  his  posterity.  Moses  in  the  pas- 
sage cited  selects  one  item  of  the  contract: — 
Paul  cites  another;  each  of  their  subjects  required 
separate  parts  of  the  same  covenant.  It  is  only 
necessary  that  the  apostle  should  speak  ot  the 
time  when  Abraham  was  made  partaker  of  righ- 
teousness But  it  was  necessary  for  Moses,  to 
call  up  another  part  of  the  same  covenant,  and  to 
claim  its  accomplishment  to  all  the  congregation 
of  Israel,  for  whom  he  plead.  Now  I  ask,  by  what 
authority,  does  Mr.  C.  declare  that  one  item  of 
this  covenant  was  private,  which  the  apostle  tells 
us  was  sealed  to  Abraham  by  circumcision? 
when  Moses  who  selects  another  stipulation  of 
the  same  covenant,  declares  it  to  be  public,  and 
equally  to  belong  to  the  whole  comp{<ny  of  the 
Jews.  Now  reader,  whether  of  these  two  will 
you  believe,  Moses  the  inspired  penman,  or  Mr, 
C* 

*Mr.  C.  in  order  to  make  a  little  sport,  and 
call  the  attention  of  the  reader,  from  Mr.  Ws 
mode  of  argument,  page  19,  creates  a  syllogism, 
in  which  he  gives  an  example  of  Mr.  W's  mode 
of  argument,  from  a  particular  premise,  to  a  gen- 
eral conclusion;  but  he  might  have  saved  the  rea- 
der some  trouble,  either  by  refering  to  some  of 
his  best  arguments,  for  examples  of  false  reason- 
ing, or  else  in  opposition  to  the  apostle  Paul,  prov- 
ed that  Abraham  was  not  the  Father  of  the  faith- 
ful, for  without  this  last  he  cannot  prove  that  Mr. 
Ws.  premise  was  particular. 


BAPTISM.  131 

It  is  indeed  surprising  to  witness  the  efforts 
made  by  the  Baptists,  to  destroy  the  true  scripture 
intent  of  the  rite  of  circumcision.  Mr.  C's  pre- 
decessors, attempted  to  make  it  only  a  national 
distinction.  Pedo-Baptists  have  succeeded  in 
chasing  them  from  this  refuge.  Mr.  C.  took  no 
shelter  under  the  covert  of  this  argument.  It 
appears  indeed  ridiculous  to  the  christian,  or  even 
rational  world,  to  hold  that  up  for  a  rational  dis- 
tinction, which  did  not  distinguish:  It  was 
found  that  circumcision  did  not  distinguish  be- 
tween the  Ishmalites  and  Israelites. 

Mr.  C.  in  order  to  hold  up  some  substitute,  and 
fill  up  the  chasm  made  by  the  loss  of  this  potent 
argument,  invents  a  new  one;  or  at  least  an  old 
argument  new  modelled;  that  is,  circumcision  was 
indeed  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  but 
that  covenant  only  secured  temporal  blessings, 
such  as  a  large  family  to  Abraham,  and  a  place 
for  their  habitation,  the  land  of  Canaan.  &c.  Let 
us  try  for  a  moment  his  arguments,  and  see  their 
conclusions. 

FIRST    ARGUMENT. 

Circumcision  sealed  the  land  of  Canaan  to  all 
the  specified  subjects  of  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision: 

But  the  tribe  of  Reuben,  the  tribe  of  Gad,  and 
the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh  were  the  'specified 
subjects  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision; 

Therefore,  the  tribe  of  Reuben,  the  tribe  of  Gad 
and  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh,  obtained  a  pos- 
session in  the  land  of  Canaan. 

The  conclusion  of  this  syllogism  is  false — for 
'  these  tribes  never  got  any  possession  in  the  land 


132  BAPirSiM. 

of  Canaan;  they  possessed  the  kingdoms  of  Og 
and  Sihoii  on  this  side  Jorda-n.  Mr.  C's  conclusion 
is  false,  because  tie  ^^cripture  is  true.  What  turn 
will  he  take  next?  Why!  they  got  the  land  they 
desired — true,  but  tlie  force  of  the  argument  de- 
pends upon  their  getting  the  land  of  Cannan. 
Esau  or  his  children, the  Edomites,  got  the  land 
they  desired  viz.  Mount  Seir.  They  too,  were 
the  children  of  Abraham,  and  had  also  the  seal  of 
*  this  covenant  in  Mr.  C's.  sen?e.  Let  uf  therefore 
cori'ect  the  argument,  and  make  it  correspond 
with  truth. 

Circumcision  sealed  temporal  blessings  to  all  the 
specified  subjects  of  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision: 

But  (he  tribe  of  Reuben,  the  tribe  of  Gad,  and 
the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh,  were  the  specified  sub- 
jects of  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 

Therefore,  the  tribe  of  Reuben,  the  tribe  of  Gad. 
and  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh,  had  an  earthly  pos- 
session secured  to  them,  with  other  temporal 
blessings. 

The  defect  in  the  first  syllogism  is,  that  the  first 
■term  is  false — the  conclusion  fairly  founded  on  it 
is  contrary-  to  fact;  but  the  last  argument,  in  all 
its  terms,  corresponds  with  fact. 

'If ye  be  willing  and  obedient,'  is  Mr.  C's  con- 
dition of  this  covenant.  Perhaps  he  will  say  that 
these  tribes  were  not  willing  orobedient.  In  do- 
ing this,  he  will  again  have  to  create  some  scrip- 
ture, to  prove  that  they  were  more  disobedient  and 
unwilling  than  any  of  those  tribes  that  did  inherit 
the  land  of  Canaan. 


BAPTISM.  138 


SECOND   ARGUMENT. 


Circumcision,  as  the  seal  of  t!ie  covenant  of 
circumcision,  only  secured  temporal  blessings  to 
its'sprcified  subjects. 

But  circumcision  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
bircumcision,  secured  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
to  Abraham,  a  specified  subject  of  that  covenant, 
Rom.  4.  11.* 

Therefore,  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  is  only  a 
temporal  blessing. 

Although  it  be  unjust  to  reason  from  a  particu- 
lar premise  to  a  general  conclusion,  yet  every  Lo- 
gician will  say  that  it  is  fair  to  reason  from  a  ge- 
neral premise,  to  a  particular  conclusion.  If  I 
make  a  general  assertion,  therefore,  respecting  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  that  must  be  true,  of  ev- 
ry  particular  contained  in  that  covenant. 

The  assertion  of  the  premise,  is  often  made  by 
Mr.  C.  'It  contained  nothing  but  temporal  bless- 
ings.' How  can  he  rid  himself  of  the  conclusion? 
because  every  person  knovvs  it  to  be  false.  Now 
reader,  view  his  method  of  escape;  circumcision 
sealed  to  Abraham,  what  it  did  to  no  other  speci- 
fied subject.     Then  let  us  amend  the  syllogism  to 

*  I  wonder  Mr.  C.  did  not  propose  some  a- 
mendmer.t  on  the  translation  of  this  verse,  or  a- 
mend  it,  as  he  did  the  verse  in  Luke  1.  It  certain- 
ly stands  much  in  his  road,  his  most  convenient 
method,  will  be,  to  borrow  the  plan  of  managing 
scripture  from  the  Anti-trinitarians,  on  1  .John,  5, 
7,  and  a  few  other  passages,  and  urge  the  fact  that, 
jibe  Pedo-JBaptists  have  put  that  passage  in  Rom, 
N 


134  BAPTISM. 

suit  Mr.  C's  exception,  and  see  if  it  can  answer  his 
purpose. 

If  the  blessings  sealed  in  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision were  only  temporal  in  their  nature,  then 
circumcision  could  not  seal  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to  any  of  its  specified  subjects.  But  the 
former  is  true,  and  therefore  the  latter. 

This  argument  would  exactly  serve  his  pur- 
pose, but  it  has  this  defect,  that  it  has  no  scripture 
to  support  it;  but  an  abundance  of  passages  to 
contradict  it;  particularly  that  cited  from  Rom. 
4.  11. 

Let  us  therefore,  once  more  correct  it,  by  the 
word  of  God,  and  i-t  will  aaswcr  the  purpose  of 
every  honest  man. 

The  covenant  of  circumcision  secured  bless- 
ings, temporal  and  spiritual,  to  ail  its  specified 
subjects. 

But  all  believers  represented  by  Abraham,  were 
the  specified  subjects  of  that  covenant. 

Therefore  all  believers  resprcsented  by  Abra- 
ham, have  blessing,  temporal  and  spiritual,  secured 
to  them,  by  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  Each 
of  the  terms  of  this  syllogism  corresponds  with 
scripture  and  with  the  fact. 

The  first  term  is  true,  Gen.  17.  7:   'and  I  will 
establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee'  Slc. 
Rom.  4.  11.     'And  he  received  the  sign  of  circum- 
cision, a  seal   of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith,  • 
which  he  had,  yet,  being  uncircumcised.' 

The  second  term  is  true  Gen.  17.  6:  'and  I  will 
make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I  will  make  na- 
tions of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee.' 
Rom.  4. 11.  'That  he  might  be  the  father  of  all 
them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circumci- 
sed.   Rom.  9. 8.    'They  who  are  the  children  of 


BAPTISM.  135 

the  flesl),  these  are  not  the  children  of  God;  but 
the  children  of  the  promise,  are  counted  for  the 
seed.'     The  conclusion  will  not  be  denitd. 

Upon  the  whole  I  observe,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  foresee  the  point,  to  which  the  votary  of  absurdi- 
ty, will  travel.  Mr.  C.  will  no  doubt  find  some 
method  of  cure,  although  I  cannot  tell  \vha:t  it  will 
be:  and,  no  doubt,  it  will  satisfy  his  deluded  follow- 
ers, yet  I  think  it  improbable,  he  will  satisfy  himself. 


IV.  PROPOSITION. 

That  Baptism  camQ  in  the  room  of  circumcision. 

It  is  evident  from  the  observations  made  on  the 
preceding  proposition,  that  circumcision  was  a 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  the  same  was 
dispensed  under  the  Old  testament  dispensation.  It 
was  the  first  seal  to  be  administered,  to  the  subject 
of  that  dispensatioD.as  a  security,  for  their  obtaining 
the  blessings  contained  in  the  covenant  of  grace. 
That  there  were  many  to  whom  the  seal  was  war- 
rantably  applied,  who  never  were  made  partakers 
of  its  blessings,  is  granted.  So  there  are  many 
who  subscribe  with  the  hand,  and  affix  their  seal 
to  obligations,  who  never  discharge  the  duties  re^ 
quired  m  the  bond.  All  will  therefore  grant,  that 
insincerity,  or  hypocrisy  in  receiving,  or  improv- 
ing the  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  never  destroys 
their  feeing,  or  varies  their  nature.  Suffice  it,  to  say, 
tlial  all,  to  whom  thete  seals  are  sanctified,  pos- 
sess a  full  security,  to  the  blessings  contained 
in  the  covenant  of  grace. 

We  shall  now  proceed,  to  prove  the  doctrine  conr 
fained   in  the  proposition. 


136  BAPTISM 

■  If  circumcision  was  a  sacramental  seal  of  ad- 
mission, into  the  visible  church,  then  Baptism 
came  in  the  room  of  circumcision:  but  the  for- 
mer we  have  already  proven:  the  latter  follows, 
by  natural  inference.  Baptists,  aware  of  the  con- 
clusion, have  taken  care,  never  to  grant  the  first 
assertion.  They  will  admit  that  circumcision 
was  any  thing,  but  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 
Mr.  C.  who  exoells  all  his  predecessors,  has 
with  a  newly  invented  tellescope,  discovered  five 
new  covenants^  out  of  which  he  has  discovered 
thai  only  one  of  them  belonged  to  the  covenant 
of  grace  ;  the  rest  were  scarcely  its  satelites.  Cir- 
Gumcision  was  a  seal  of  one  of  the  smaller  cov- 
enants, but,  according  to  him,  vras  not  a  seal  of 
the  covenant  of  grace. 

When  we  say,  that  Baptism  came  in  the  room  of 
circumcision,  we  mean  no  more,  than  that  baptism 
occupied  the  same  place  in  the  order  of  its  adminis* 
tralion,  and  the  bkssings  it  sealed,  that  circumci- 
sion did;  and  as  circumcision  was  first  in  order, 
so  is  baptism.  That  it  is  sinful  for  an  unbaptised 
person  to  partake  of  the  Lords  supper,  is  granted; 
baptism  must  precede.  But  with  respect  to  the  sa- 
cranicnt  of  the  passover,  the  observation  is  equally 
true.  Ex.  12.  48.  'And.when  a  stranger  shall  so- 
journ with  thee,  and  will  keep  the  passover  unto 
the  Lord,  let  all  his  males  be  circumcised,  and 
then  let  him  come  near  and  keep  it;  and  he  shall 
be  as  one  that  is  born  in  the  land:  for  no  uncir- 
Gumcised  person  shall  eat  thereof.' 

But  the  spiritual  import  of  the  ordinances,  es- 
tablishes the  truth  of  my  proposition.  Persons  tO' 
be  publickiy  acknowledged  Christ's  disciples, 
must  be  cleansed  by ^the 'washing  of  regeneration, 
and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Tit.  3.  5. 


BAPTISM.  137 

• 

Which  is  emblematically  set  forth  in  the  rite  of 
b.iptism.  In  like  manner  regeneration,  or  circum- 
cision of  the  heart,  was  required  of  all  those,  who 
were  under  the  former  dispensation,  constituted 
members.  Ezek.  44.  9.  'Thussaith  the  Lord  God, 
no  stranger,  uncirctinicised  in  heart,  nor  uncir- 
cumcised  in  flesh,  shall  enter  into  my  sanctuary, 
©f  any  slranger  that  is  among  the  children  of  Is- 
rael.' 

As  we  approach  nigher  to  the  point  of  dispute, 
for  fear  of  the  consequences  arising  from  princi- 
ples established,  Mr.  C.  while  he  reasons  no  bet- 
ter, declaims  more  heavily.  By  serious  reasoning, 
by  prophane  sport,  and  by  consequences  without 
premises,  he  attempts  to  bear  otf  the  prize  to  the 
Baptists.  There  are  seven  points  of  difference, 
between  these  ordinances,  that  render  our  propo- 
sitions entirely  absurd — yet  reader,  let  us  seri- 
ously examine  these,  and  you  will  find  they  shall 
at  last  appear  like  his  six  new  covenants,  only  one, 
we  have  these  detailed  at  length,  pages  12,  13. 

'Babtism  differs  from  circumcision,  first  in  the 
'  sex  of  its  subjects,  men  and  women  were  bap- 
*  tised,  males  only  were  circumcised.'  After  the 
full  reply  made  to  this  objection  by  Mr.  Edwards 
and  other  Pedo-Baptist  writers,  we  thought  the 
objection  would  rise  no  more.  We  shall  how- 
ever give  it  all  the  force  to  which  it  is  entitled.  I 
would  then  observe: 

.1st.  The  dispute  in  this  place,  is  not  the  number, 
or  quality  of  the  subjects  of  this  ordinance.  But 
we  now  dispute  respecting  the  nature  of  the  ordi- 
nances, as  seals  of  a  covenaQt.  5ut  it  is  self  evi- 
dent, that  the  difference,  or  agreement  could  never 
be  learned  from  the  number  of  the  subjects  to 
which  either  was  applied. 

N  2 


138  BAPTISM. 

« 

2nd.  The  whole  force  of  the  objection  consists 
in  the  limitation  allowed  by  the  head  of  the  church, 
in  the  number  of  the  specified  subjects  of  circum- 
cision. But  if  HE  chose  at  any  future  period,  to  ex- 
tend that  limitation,  will  any  person  hence  infer^ 
*hat  the  very  nature  of  the  ordinance  is  thereby 
changed.'' 

3rd.  If,  in  any  period  of  the  church,^women  were 
excluded,  by  the  divine  command,  from  affixing  one 
of  the  seals  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  after- 
wards, by  the  same  Lord,  this  privilege  was  ex- 
tended to  them,  who  is  prepared  to  say  with  Mr. 
C.  that,  therefore,  the  seals  were  not  ihe  same  in 
iheir  nature  and  intent? 

4th.  It  produces  no  change,  either  in  a  bond,  or 
its  seals,  if  in  addition  to  its  few  original  signers, 
some,  more  should  afterwards  ehoose  te  come  un- 
der its  obligations,  and  enjoy  its  privileges  by 
subscribing  their  names,  and   affixing  their  seals.* 

*lt  appears  from  a  note  in  Mr.  C's.  book  P.  24, 
25.  that  he  had  become  something  entangled  with 
ihis  observation  of  Mr.  W.  and  that  in  an  inter- 
val of  the  debate,  he  had  taken  legal  council  on 
the  argument.  Whether  he  had  obtamed  the  coun- 
cil by  the  payment  of  a  fee,  or  obtained  it  grat- 
is, he  does  not  say.  Yet  I  would  inform  the  law- 
yer and  Wys  client  Mr.  O.  that  they  are  both 
wrong.  'He  (viz.  the  lawyer)  observed,  that  Mr.. 
'Ws.  argument  from  a  bond  was  predicated  upon 

*  a  gross  mistake  of  the  true  nature  of  a  bond.' 
He  adds,  'If  there  were  a  thousand  names,  or  only 

*  one,  added  to  a  bond,  it  wrould  avail  those   names 

*  nothing,  unless  there  were  some  specifications,^ 
'  in  the  bond  concerning  them.'  The  latter  asser- 
tion of  the  lawyer  may  be  admitted,  but  it  proved 


BAPTISM,  1S9 

Women  were  never  excluded,  in  conspquence  of 
the  difference  of  sex,  from  enjoying  the  benefits 
of  thi?  covpnanl;  they  were  only  excluded  from  af- 
fixinga  visibiti  seal,  they  are  now  admitted;  not  by 
changing  the  seal,  but  by  extending  the  privi- 
lege. 

I  think  these  rea3ons  conclusive.  Had  Mr.  C. 
been  serious,  he  woold  not  have  diverted  the 
mind  of  the  reader,  by  calling  his  attention  to  the 
different  privileges  of  the  subjects  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  in  order  thereby  either  to  prove 
that  there  were  different  covenants  or  seals.  The 
dispensation,  under  which,  it  is  our  privilege  to 
live,  knows  no  difference  between  Jew,  or  Greek; 

nothing  absurd  in  Mr.  Ws  assertion.  It  will  ap- 
pear from  the  following  examples.  England  and 
America  made  a  nr.tional  covenant  sixty  years  ago; 
to  this  covenant  there  is  an  addition  of  millions,  on 
each  side,  by  birth,  emigration  &c.  query  is  there 
any  alteration  in  the  bond?  Though  every  indi- 
vidual is  bound  in  the  same  sense,  they  would  be, 
if  their  names  were  subscribed,  and  their  seals  af- 
fixed. Again:  A  father  made  a  will:  eight 
months  after  he  died,  his  wife  was  delivered  of  an- 
other heir  to  the  estate,  query,  would  not  this 
ehild,  be  bound  by  the  obligation  of  the  father's 
will,  or  covenant,  and  entitled  to  the  privileges 
of  it? 

So  precisely  is  it  with  the  bond  of  which  I 
spoke,  the  number  of  i^  heirs,  vary  in  every  sep- 
parate  age.  Yet  the  covenant  itself  continues 
the  same,  and  its  seals  the  same.  The  reader 
who  may  neither  be  preacher  nor  lawyer,  may 
come  to  a  knowledge  of  Mr.  W's.  assertion  with- 
out the  cost  or  trouble  of  Mr.  C, 


140  BAPTISM. 

bond,  or  free;  mple,  or  ffinale.  In  a]]  these  re- 
spects the  former  dispensation  did  distirguish, 
the  ppecia]  exercise  '^f  grr.ce,  under  that  dispen- 
sation,  was  corfired  claefly  to  the  Jews.  Should 
I  now  reason  from  this  fact,  as  Mr.  C.  does,  he 
would  refuse  my  conclusion,  for  the  same  reason  I 
refuse  his.  Reader,  look,  at  the  force  of  his  argu- 
ment; just  by  changing  the  subjects,  I  shall,  upon 
his  plan,  prove  that  saving  grace  in  the  hearts  of 
believers,  is  now  riiffe  ent,  from  that  saving  grace 
which  existed  in  the  hearts  of  believers,  under  the 
Old  testament. 

If  saving  grace,  under  the  Old  testament, 
was  chiefly  confined  to  the  Jewish  nation, 

Tlien  saving  grace  is  not  of  the  same  nature,  un- 
der the  present  dispensation,  it  was,  under  the  for- 
mer. 

But  the  former  is  true ;  and  therefore  the  latter. 

Mr.  CamphelVs  Argument. 

If  circumcision  under  the  Old  testament  was 
confined  to  the  male  posterity  of  Abraham, 

Then  Baptism,  the  present  seal  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  is  notol  the  same  nature  of  circumcision, 
a  seal  under  the  former  dispensation. 

But  the  former  is  true,  and  therefore  the  latter. 

Every  reason  Mr.  C.  can  offer,  to  prove  the 
truth  of  the  last  syllogism,  will  bear  with  equal, 
force  upon,  the  separate  terms  of  the  first — but  the 
first  is  known  by  every  person  to  be  false,  and  as 
the  second  is  established  in  the  same  manner,  it 
must  of  necessity  be  also  false. 

The  truth  of  my  observations,  is  unanswerably 
confirmed  by  the  apostle,  in  the  passage  last  cited. 
Formerly,  the  privilege  of  a  Jew,  above  a  Greek, 


BAPTISM.  141 

was  much  greater;  now,  in  Christ,  they  are  equal. 
In  the  same  manuer,  the  privilege  of  a  free  man 
excelled  that  of  a  bondman:  now  they  are  the 
same.  So  that  dispensation  of  grace  distinguished 
between  male  and  female,  this  is  no  more.  But 
the  addition  of  Greek  converts  to  the  church, 
Christ  found  on  earth,  varied  not  the  nature  of  that 
grace  that  subdued  both.  In  like  manner,  the  ad- 
dition of  women,  by  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism, the  first  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  did 
not  vary  the  nature  of  that  seal. 

'Secondly,  it  differs  from  circumcision  in  the  . 
*  age  of  its  subjects.  Baptism  has  no  age  speci- 
'  fied  for  any  of  its  subjects,'  P.  12.  I  now  agree 
with  Mr.  C.  that,  baptism  has  no  age  specified  for 
any  of  its  subjects.'  From  the  birth  to  the  grave, 
this  ordinance  may  be  administered.  It  is  equal- 
ly true  that  the  male  children  of  the  Jews  were 
ordered  by  the  divine  law,  to  be  circumciseti  on 
the  eighth  day.  Yet  the  reasoning  of  Mr.  C.  from 
this  fact,  is  a  sophism  of  the  same  nature,  with  the 
pi'eceding  difference,  to  which  we  have  replied, 
because: 

1st.  The  difference  stated,  depends  not  on  the 
nature,  either  of  circumcision  or  baptism,  but  only 
on  the  time  of  admini'^tration,  the  difference  con- 
sists therefore  in  something  without  the  ordinance, 
a  mere  circumstance  attending  it. 

2rid.  To  circumcise  on  the  eighth  day,  was  not 
essential  to  the  being  of  the  ordinance, because  we 
find  that  there  was  no  circumcision  during  the 
travel  of  Israel  in  tie  wilderness — Joshua,  5.  3,  4, 
5,  6,  7.  The  divine  law  never  did  attach  that  im- 
portance to  the  eighth  day,  Mr.  C's.  argument 
does.  The  law  did  yoi^itively  require  the  perfor- 
mance of  the  rite  of  circumcision;  but  it  did  not 


142  BAPTISM. 

as  positively  require  the  performance  of  it  on  the 
eighth  day,  as  Mr.  C.  supposes.  God  declared 
that  he  would  cut  off  the  uncircumcised  man  from 
his  people;  but  §ives  no  hint  that  he  would  cut  off 
those  not  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day;  for  had 
this  been  the  statute,  then  all  the  males  born  in 
the  wilderness,  must  have  been  cut  off.  It  is  evi- 
dent therefore  that  the  the  whole  force  of  Mr.  C's. 
argument,  depends  upon  a  circumstance  accompa- 
nying this  ordinance,  which  was  not  essential  to 
its  being. 

But  suppose  the  statute  had  bt^en,  that  all  the 
males  should  be  circumcised  when  infants,  then 
Mr.  C.  would  have  asserted,  as  he  did  in  the  de- 
bate, that  child,  infant  4t-  meant  people  of  thirty 
years  of  age;  persons  arrived  to  the  years  of  ma- 
turity. This  he  proved  from  some  old  books,  but 
not  from  scriptures,  Pedo-Baptist's  have  the  advan- 
tage in  this  place,  the  time  when,  this  sacrament 
might  be  administered,  was  specified — it  was  on 
the  eighth  day.  The  reason,  no  doubt,  of  this  po- 
sitive injunction, — the  particular  specification  of 
the  time,  was  to  pre\ent  undue  delay:  had  no  time 
been  specified,  under  one  pretext  or  other,  the  rite 
would  have  been  neglected,  and  in  many  cases, 
entirely  omitted:  some  would  have  cavilled,  per- 
haps like  Mr.  C.  andshe^^n  by  strong  arguments, 
that  infant  or  child  meant  people  of  thirty  years  of. 
age;  to  prevent  this,  the  time  was  specified. 

But  the  only  argument,  that  should  be  drawn 
from  this  circumstance,  by  baptist  orPedo-Baptist, 
is,  that  utidtr  the  foimer  dispensation,  persons 
were  admitted  members  of  the  visible  church 
when  infants.  Now  reader  look  at  Mr.  C's,  dif- 
ference in  its  tfue  dress. 


BAPTISM.  143 

If  circumcision  was  performed  on  the  eighth 
day, 

Then  baptism  could  not  come  in  the  room  of 
circumcK^ion: 

But  the  former  is  true,  and  therefore  the  latter. 

We  refuse  to  admit  the  conclusion,  from  the 
importance  attached  bj'  the  argument  to  the  eighth 
day:  let  us  therefore  amend  the  argument,  by  the 
facts  as  establrshed  by  scripture. 

If  circumcision,  as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  was  administered  to  persons  in  a  state 
of  infancy, 

Then  baptism  may  also  be  administered  toper- 
sons  of  that  age. 

But  the  former  is  true,  and  therefore  the  latter. 
The  truth  of  this  argument  will  appear  from 
the  following  summary  observations: 

1st.  It  was  not  essential  to  tlie  being  of  circum- 
cision, that  it  be  administered  on  the  eighth  day, 
from  that  day,  to  the  seventy-fifth  year,  we  have 
it  performed  by  divine  command. 

2nd.  Baptism  may  be  performed  on  the  eighth, 
tenth,  or  on  any  day. 

3rd.  From  a  collection  of  scripture  facts,  no 
more  importance  is  essentially  attached  to  the  time 
ot  circumcision,  than  is  to  the   time  of  baptism. 

4th.  Difference.  'Baptism  differs  from  circum- 
'  cision,  in  the  prerequisites  required  to  apartici- 
'  pation  of  the  ordinance,  circumcision   required 

*  only  carnal   descent  from  Abraham,  or  covenant 

*  relation  to  Abraham,  but  baptism  requires  no  car- 
'  nal  relation  to  Abraiiam,  it  requires  simply  faith 

*  in  Christ,  as  its  sole  prerequisite.     If   thou   be- 

*  lievest  with  all  thine   heart,  thou    mayest    No 
'  faith,  was  required  as  a  sine  qua  noUf  to  circuraci- 


144  BAPTISM. 

*6ion.    But  the  New  testament  requires  faith,  ss  a 
^sine  qua  jiom,  to  baptism.'     Acts  8.  37. 

I  have  not  genorally,  blamed  Mr.  C.  for  inge- 
nuity of  arguinetit.  I  have  considered  his  soph- 
isms, rather  naked  and  exposed.  This  last  differ- 
ence is  one  of  this  kirid.  He  is  contrasting  two 
ordinances,  in  order  to  fir.d  the  difference  between 
them,  tobeof  that  nalure,  and  n.agnitude,  that 
they  cannot  be  of  the  same  import;  and  therefore 
that  the  one  car  not  come  in  the  room  of  the  other. 
But  in  the  coniraist  here  made,  he  should  either 
have  left  out  'Covetiant  relction  to  Abraham' 
when  speaking  of  circumcision,  or  else  continued 
it,  when  speaking  of  baptism;  for  otlterwise  the 
contrast  was  not  fair.  But  neither  of  these  he 
dare  do.  If  he  had  omitted  it  altogether,  the 
most  ignorant  person,  that  could  read  the  scrip- 
tures, would  have  asked  him  for  a  warrant  to  cir- 
cumcise Jewish  prosylites,  that  had  no  carnal  re- 
lation to  Abraham.  He  dare  not  have  omitted  it 
in  the  subject  of  baptism;  for  then  he  must  have 
turned  Pedo-Baptist,  and  lost  his  aim:  because, 
a  covenant  relation  to  Abraham,  is  the  reason 
mentioned  by  the  apostle  Peter,  why  the  children 
of  his  hearers  were  entitled  to  baptism.  Acts.  2. 
38,39.  'Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  repent  and 
be  baptised,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins;  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  for  the  pr6r 
mise  is  unto  you  and  your  children.'  Should 
you  ask,  to  whom  was  this  promise  made?  It 
is  answered  to  .Abraham ;  and  through  him,  to  his 
spiritual  seed.  So  reasons  the  apostle  Paul.  'If 
ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  proAiise.'  The  strength  of  Mr. 
C's  argument  depends  upon  the  difference  of  the 
prerequisites: 


BAPTISM.  145 

1st.  Carnal  descent  from  Abraham.  This  how- 
ever, nill  not  answer  his  purpose;  because  it  is 
not  a  fact.  Carnal  descent  was  not  essentially 
necessary,  in  erder  to  entitle  to  circumcision. 
Were  Abraham's  servants,  born  in  his  house,  or 
bought  with  bis  money,  or  those  heathens  who  be- 
came the  proselytes  of  the  Jewish  religion,  Abra- 
honvs  by  carnal  descent?  They  were  to  be  cir- 
cumcised, and  yet  they  did  not  possess  Mr.  C's 
prerequisite. 

When  a  scriptural  view  is  taken  of  this  sobject, 
Mr.  C's  prerequisite  disappears.  For  a  long  peri- 
od, the  gospel  was  in  a  great  measure,  confined  to 
the  natural  posterity  of  Abraham.  The  promise 
xvas  addressed  to  them,  and  not  to  the  other  nations 
of  the  world.  This  continued  through  the  former 
dispensation.  So  the  apostle  declares,  Rom.  9.  4. 
'Who  are  Israelites;  to  whom  pertaineth  the  adop- 
tion, and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the 
giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the 
promises.'  But  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  gospel  or- 
dinances ehould  extend  beyond  gOspel  promise; 
this  would  be,  to  give  ordinances  to  those  who  had 
no  warrant  to  receive  them.  But,  as  the  promi- 
ses for  that  time,  were  chiefly  confined  to  that  peo- 
ple, so  must  the  ordinances  also.  Circumcision, 
precisely  like  baptism,  must  extend  only  to  its 
proper  subjects;  it  belonged  to  the  promise  to  point 
these  out.  The  law,  under  both  dispensations, 
lequired  the  administration  of  the  ordinances;  but 
it  belonged  to  the  promises  to  point  out  the  pro- 
per subjects;  a  few  observations  will  discover  the 
true  merit  of  Mr.  C's   distinguishing  prerequisite. 

It   was   but     a     small      share    of   Abraham's 
natural  seed,  who  were  to  be  circumcised.     This 
tile  he  was  bounds  to  perform  on  his  servants  said 
O 


146  BAPTISM. 

OP  his  children;  but  there  is  no  hint  given,  that  this 
was  to  be  continued  to  their  posterity.  Balaam 
was,  I  suppose,  as  truly  a  son  of  Abraham,  as  Mo- 
se?  was.  Will  Mr.  C.  say,  that  he  was  under  the 
same  obligatioa  to  be  circumcised?  He  was  a 
Midianite,  a  >^on  of  Abraham  by  Keturah.  Or  were 
all  the  hosts  of  wandering  Arabs,  that  traverse  the 
wide  deserts,  under  the  same  obligation  to  receive 
this  rite,  the  Jews  were?  Yet  all  these  possessed 
Mr.  C's  prerequisites;  carnal  descent. 

This,  reader,  is  the  reason  he  uses  the  words 
'covenant  relation;'  because  he  found  something 
else  necessary,  than  merely  carnal  descent. 
This  latter  clause,  he  should  retain  and  remove 
the  former;  or  agree  that  all  the  worshipping  as- 
semblies that  met  at  Jerusalem,  from  any  thing  in 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  assembled  in  no 
other  character,  than  an  Arabian  Caravan;  for 
they  all  possessed  Mr.  C's  prerequisite.  The  cav- 
enant  relatio7i  makes  the  difference,  I  grant.  The 
one  was  a  people  in  covenant  with  God;  the 
other  was  not.  For  this  I  contend,  so  does  Mr. 
C.  in  this  difference;  yet,  in  other  places  denies  it. 

2nd.  'But  baptism  requires  no  carnal  relation  to 
'  Abraham;  it  requires  simply  faith  in  Christ,  as 
its  sole  prerequisite.  'If  thou  believest  with  all 
'  thine  heart  thou  mayest:'  no  faith  was  required 

*  as  a  sine  qua  non  to  circumcision.     But  the  New 
'  testament   presents  fnilh,  as   a  sine  qua  non   to 

*  Baptism.'   Acts.  8  37 

To  faith,  as  a  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  bap- 
tism, we  shall  attend  in  its  proper  place.  But 
what  I  sh^U  endeavour  to  establi^Jh  in  this  place,  is, 
that  it  is  ho  more  a  prerequisite  of  Baptism,  than 
it  was  of  circumcision. 

I  observe  that  it  will  be  granted  on  all  sides. 


BAPTISM.  147 

that  the  Jews  were  under  tlie  same  moral  obliga- 
tion fobtlieve  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  the 
church,  under  the  present  dispensation  is.  'The 
ju.>t  sliall  live  by  faith,'  was  as  characteristic  of 
the  Old,  as  of  the  New  testament  saints.  It  was 
as  truly  the  ground  of  their  ju-stification,  as  it  is  of 
ours.  That  it  was  as  necessary,  that  faith  should 
precede  their  receipt  of  ordinances,  as  it  is,  that 
it  should  precede  ours,  should  not,  by  any  profes- 
sor of  the  christian  religion,  be  denied. 

A  Jewish  prosolyle  testified  his  assent  to  the 
gospel,  by  his  submitting  to  the  rite  of  circumci- 
sion, in  the  same  manner  as  a  heathen  would  now, 
by  his  receiving  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Mem- 
bers of  both  dispensations  were  equally  bound  to 
belie\e;  because,  without  faith  it  was  ever  impos- 
sible to  please  God.  By  what  authority  then, 
does  Mr  C.  require  it  as  a  prerequisite  to  baptism 
and  not  to  circumcision.  That  an  adult  should 
believe  before  he  is  baptized,  I  grant.  But  that  faith 
preceded  the  circumcision  of  Abraham,  is  proved 
in  the  epistle  to  the  Rom.  I  would  further  ask, 
was  not  a  Jewish  prosolyte  bound  to  believe  be- 
fore he  was  circumcised?  Mr.  C.  will  grafjt  this 
in  some  sense.  He  was  bound  to  believe  the  pro- 
mises of  God,  made  in  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion, respecting  temporal  blessings;  because  cir- 
cumcision sealed  these.  No  matter,  t\\\?  faith  was 
as  really  a  prerequisite  to  his  admission  to  the  or> 
dinance  of  circumcision,  as  saving  faith  is,  in  or- 
der to  our  admission  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism: 
and  children,  being  circumcised,  when  eight  days 
old,  would  form  no  excuse  to  the  prosolyte,  for  be- 
ing without  iaith.  Would  it  have  been  a  duty  for 
one  of  these  converts  to  the  Jewish  religion,  in  the 
waj  of  discrediting  God's  promises,  respecting  the 


148  BAPTISM. 

earthly  Canaan,  to  have  submitted  to  the  rite  of 
circumcision?  Would  not  such  conduct  have 
been  consummate  hypocrisy?  Mr.  C.  therefore, 
makes  no  escape  by  this  distinguishing  prerequi- 
site. 

It  teaches  a  new  doctrine,  that  a  person  may 
warrantably,  have  a  faith  in  the  promises  of  God, 
respecting  temporal  blessings,  and  yet  possess  no 
faith  m  the  promises  respecting  spiritual  blessings; 
and  that  the  former  is  accepted  of  God  without 
the  latter.  It  is  plainly  this,  that  an  adult  might 
be  admitted  to  profess  the  Jewish  religion,  by  a 
faith  in  the  promises  of  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion, all  of  which  were  temporal,  whereas,  a  per- 
son to  bs  admitted  a  member  of  Ihe  New  testa- 
ment church,  must  have  saving  faith  in  the  pro- 
mises of  the  covenant  of  grace,  of  such  doctrines, 
the  simple  statement,  is  a  sufficient  refutation. 

'■  In  the  4th  place  baptism  differs  from  circum- 
'  cision,  in  the  character  of  its  administrators.  Pa* 
'  rents,  relations,  or  civil  officers,  performed  the 
'  rite  of  circumcision.  Thus  Zipporah  circumci- 
'  sed  the  son  of  Moses;  Joshua  circumcised  the 
*  Jews.*  Baptism  is  an  ordinance  connected  with 
'  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ.'     Page  13. 

Mr.  C.  is  evidently  at  a  great  loss  to  invent  dif-- 
ferences  between  these  ordinances;  or  he  would 
never  have  tried   this    difference.     To   expose  it, 
however,  and  give  the  most  ignorant  reader  an  op- 

*This  example  ol  Joshua  circumcising  the 
Jews,  proves  that  civil  officers  did  it — Mr.  C.  you 
should  have  told  your  readers  that  Joshua  did  it, 
in  the  same  way  king  Solomon  built  the  temple* 
I  suppose  neither  Solomon  nor  Joshua  touched  ei;- 
ther  of  these  pieces  of  labor. 


BAPTlSxM.  MO* 

portunity  of  judging  of  its  true  merit,  we  shall 
give  one  of  a  similar  kind.  On  his  plan  of  argu- 
ment, I  shall  prove  this  position:  that  offering 
sacrifices  hefore  the  flood,  and  for  600  years  after, 
was  entirely  distinct  in  its  nature  and  end.  from  the- 
ordinance,  from  that  time  to  the  death  of  Christ. 
Aiad  I  establish  this  position  from  a  well  known 
fact,  that  prior  to  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  every 
person  offered  their  own  sacrifices,  A  king  of 
Judah,  for  offering  sacrifices,  was  struck  with  the 
plague  of  Leprosy,  which  deed,  would,  however, 
have  been  perfectly  warrantable,  prior  to  the  de- 
liveringofthe  law  from  Mt,  Sinai.  Now  although 
my  difference  possesses  all  the  force  of  the  one 
which  Mr.  C.  presents,  yet  will  any  person  be  so 
ignorant   as   to  believe  me? 

Christ  Jesus,  as  the  alone  head  of  the  church, 
possesses  the  alone  right  of  instituting  its  ordinan- 
ces, and  appointing  administrators  as  he  pleases. 
He  instituted  the  ordinance  of  circumcision;  and 
as  long  as  the  initiating  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
grace  was  administred  in  the  rite  of  circumcision, 
he  made  no  special  appointment  of  administrators. 
But  when  he  changed  the  form  of  the  seal,  he  ap- 
pointed special  administrators  for  tiie  ordinance. 
This  difference  merits  no  further  attention. 

'In  the  5th  place  baptism  differs  from  circum- 
'  cision,  in  its  emblematical  import.  Baptism  is 
'  emblematical  of  our  death  unto  sin,  our  burial 
*  with  Christ,  and  our  resurrection  with  him,  into 
'  newness  of  life»  Circumcision  was  a  sign  of  the 
'■  separation  of  the  Jews,  from  all  the  human  fami- 
'  ly;  and  it  was  a  type  of  the  death,  or  circumci- 
'  sion  of  Christ.'    Page  13. 

Perhaps  I  do  not  understand  Mr.  C's.  mode  of 
expression,  although  we  should  grant  all  that  he 
O  2 


150  BAPTISM. 

says*,  sttll  it  is  difficult  to  perceive  the  difference, 
The  sum,  of  Mr.  C's  statement  is,  that  baptism  is 
emblematical  of  our  deliverance  from  sin,  and  of 
our  union  to  Christ:  so  that  we  die  with  him  and 
live  with  him.  And  of  circumcision,  that  it  was  a 
separation  of  the  Jews  from  the  rest  of  the  world, 
and  a  typical  representation  of  the  death  of  Christ. 
Because  if  we  be  delivered  from  sm,  and  united 
to  Christ,  as  he  says  baptism  imports;  and  by  cir- 
cumcision separated  and  distinguished  from  the 
world,  and  directed  by  faith:j:  to  the  death  of 
Christ,  v/hicli  he  says  is  its  typical  import;  why 
then  distinguish  it  from  baptism,  which  he  de- 
clares to  be  emblematical  of  our  burial  with 
Christ.-*  This  difference,  if  language  has  any 
meaning,  so  far  from  distinguishing,  concedes  the 
two  ordinances  to  bo  one  in  import. 

*Mr.  C.  in  his  strictures,  does  not,  indeed,  appro- 
bate, in  high  language,  Mr.  W's.  understanding; 
lie  will  therefore,  more  readily  forgive  his  dullness 
of  perception. 

+Mr.  C.  has  conceded  more  in  this  difference, 
ihan  some  of  his  readers,  perhaps  are  aware.  He 
Jjas  told  us,  that  circumcision  was  typical  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  how  will  this  comport  with  some 
other  declarations,  'it  was  carnal.'  'It  sealed 
temporal  blessings  only.'"  I  have  added  the  words 
by  faith,  because  there  is  no  other  way  for  either 
New  or  Old  testament  saints,  righteously  to  view 
the  death  of  Christ:  although  I  believe  the  author 
would  not  have  put  them  in.  Notwithstanding  of 
all  Paul  says  about  the  faith  of  Old  testament 
saints,  Mr.  C.  ?i^ys  very  little  about  it. 


BAPTISM.  151 

In  this  'diflference,  as  in  many  other  places,  we 
are  indebted  to  Mr.  C.  for  the  inventio;''  of  a  new 
doctrine,  that  'circumcision  was  a  type  of  the 
death  of  Christ.'  H  \d  thi.-«  iden  been  revealed  to 
Paul  in  iiis  pubHc  dispute  with  Peter,  it  would 
have  finished  his  opponent.  Hi^d  he  proved 
to  Peter,  that  circumcision  was  a  shadow,  Peter 
would  have  united  with  him  in  declaring,  that  it 
must  have  disappeared  upon  the  coming  of  the 
substance.  But  Paul  was  more  fond  of  truth  than 
of  novelty;  and  takes  the  Pedo-Baptist  ground, 
that  circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  as  administered  under  the  Old  testament; 
and  therefore,  Jie  who  affixed  this  seal  made  him- 
self a 'debtor  to  the  whole  law;'  As  any  person 
woudd  be  bound  to  all  the  items  of  a  bond,  who 
would  subscribe  his  hand  and  set  his  seal.  Cir- 
cumcision was,  I  grant,  performed  in  an  age  of 
types;  many  typical  things  were  in  connexion  with 
it;  but  that  it  was  a  typical  rite,  I  never  before  un- 
derstood. There  is  a  "difference  between  that 
which  is  typical  and  that  which  is  emblematical. 
Circumcision  was  the  -latter,  but  not  the  former. 
Let  us  however,  take  a  view  of  the  natural  import 
of  these  ordinances. 

1st,  The  doctrine  taught  in  circumcision,  was 
the  regeneration  of  the  heart,  Deut.  3.  S,  6.  'And 
the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart,' 
compared  with  passages  already  quoted.  This 
intimates  the  true  import  of  the  rite  of  circumci- 
sion, that  the  sword  in  the  hand  of  the  spirit,  could 
separate  sin  from  the  soul.  We  find  the  word  em- 
ployed by  the  Holy  Spirit  for  this  purpose  in  the 
work  of  regeneration,  Heb.  4.  12.  'For  the  word 
of  God  is  quick  and  powerful,  and  sharper  than 
afiy  two  edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  divid- 


152  BAPTISM. 

jng  asundftr  of  soul  and  spirit,  and  of  tlie  joints 
and  marr-w.'  It  would  be  absuid  to  apply  anv 
rite  to  a  subject  of  which  it  was  not  emblVmali- 
cal;  but  circumcision  is  used  as  descriptive  of  re- 
generation. The  work  of  regeneration,  tlierefore, 
was  pointed  out  in  circumcision.*  That  this  same 
doctrine  is  taught  in  scripture,  is  not  denied. 

2nd.  Circumcision  is  used  to  express  external 
holiness,  or  holiness  as  manisfested  in  the  lan- 
guage of  abelievtr;  thus  we  find  uncircumcision 
applied  to  designate  the  contrary  of  that  holiness, 
Ex.  6.  12.  'How  then  shall  Pharaoh  hear  me, 
who  am  a  man  of  uncircumcised  lips?'  We  find 
the  prophet  Isaiah,  used  the  word  unclean  in  the 
same  sense;  Isaiah,  6.  5.  'I  am  a  man  of  unclean 
lips,  and  I  dwell  in  the  midst  of  a  people  of  un- 
clean lips.'  Now,  because  the  waht  of  water  con- 
stitutes a  pt^rson  unclean,  or  the  washing  of  it, 
clean,  and  this  is  true  in  a  moral  sense  with  re- 
spect to  baptism:  and,  because  uncircumcision 
was   used   to  point  out  the  same  kind  of  unclean- 

*A11  that  Mr.  C.  says  on  this  subject  is  lost. 
He  finds  it  always  easier,  to  reply  to  doctrines 
he  invented  for  his  opponent,  than  to  reply  to  those 
his  opponent  did  use.  Let  us  hear  him:  'To 
'substantiate  this  answer,  Mr.  W.  quoted,  Deut. 
'  30.  6.  From  which  verse  he  attempted  to  prove, 
'  that  the  promise  to  circumcise  their  heart,  implied 
'  all  spiritual  blessings  1'  Mr.  W.  did  not  say  so; 
what  he  said,  was  that  for  God  to  circumcise  the 
heart,  implied  that  the  subject  was  interested  in 
all  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace; 
because  that  the  heart  that  is  regenerated,  will  aj- 
so  be  sanctified,  and  the  person,  in  due  time,  Glo- 
rified.   I  have  said  Mr.   C.  lost  his  subject,  wft 


BAPTISM,  153 

iiess,  it  follows,  that  the  ordinances  of  circumci- 
sion and  baptism  were  of  the  same  import;  and 
therefore,  baptism,  because  it  was  of  the  same 
signification,  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision. 
But,  that  their  import  was  the  same,  will  appear 
by  observing, 

Srd.  That  the  want  of  circumcision  declared 
the  character  of  a  person  unholy.  So  the  sons 
of  Jacob  refused  to  have  any  connexion  with  the 
men  of  Shechem,  until  they  became  circumcised, 
Gen.  24.  83,  throughout  the  whole  Old  testa- 
ment scriptares,  by  way  of  contempt,  the  hea- 
thens are  called  uncircumcised.  But,  that  the 
want  of  baptism  will  imply  the  same  unholiness 
of  character  will  not  be  denied.  It  follows,  that 
as  it  respects  the  character  of  persons,  the  im- 
port of  these  ordinances  were  the  same;  and, 
therefore,  baptism  might  come  in  the  room  of 
circumcision. 

But  why  should  any,  declaring  the  scriptures  to 
be  the  word  of  God,  dispute  this  point?  The 
Old  and  New  testament  scriptures,  unite  on  this 
subject,  in  declaring  their  import  to  be  the  same, 
particularly   in   regeneration,    the  great  leading 

dispute  respecting  the  nature  of  circumcision; 
Mr.  C.  denied,  Mr.  W.  affirmed,  that  regeneration 
was  the  true  import  of  the  ordinance  of  circum- 
cision. It  wag  not  introduced  by  Mr,  W.  as  Mr. 
C.  has  it,  P.  77,  to  prove  that  the  import  of  the 
two  covenants  were  the  same;  but,  to  prove  that 
the  import  of  the  two  ordmances,  Circumcision 
and  Baptism  were  the  same.  Thus,  by  misrepre- 
sentation, he  takes  care  never  fairly  to  discuss,  or 
even  confute  this  assertion,  that  regeneration  was 
the  true  import  of  the  rite  of  circumcision. 


154  BAPTISM. 

doctrine  taug])t  in  baptism.  So  the  want  of  ears 
to  hear,  is  used  invariably  in  scripture,  to  denote 
the  want  of  a  heart  opened  by  the  spirit  of  God. 
'He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  If-.t  him  hear.'  But 
iincircumcision  of  the  ear,  is  used  to  denote  this. 
Jer.  6.  10  'To  whom  shall  I  speak  and  give 
warning,  that  they  may  hear?  Behold,  their  ear 
is  uncircumcised,  and  they  cannot  barken.'  We 
find  Stephen,  in  a  New  testament  discourse, 
preached  immediately  before  his  death,  use  this 
word  in  the  same  sense.  Acts,  7.  51.  'Ye  stiff- 
necked,  and  uncircumcised  in  heart,  ye  do  always 
resist  the  Holy  Spirit.' 

A  subject  so  plainly  taught  in  scripture  should 
not  be  controverted.  But  so  it  is,  and  such  it  will 
be,  in  every  age,  with  the  deluded  votaries  of  mi- 
serable pystems;  Mr.  C.  takes  a  plan,  P.  77  to  di- 
vert the  reader  from  the  true  signification  of  the 
expression,  to  circumcise.  'In  the  days  of  Moses, 
it  was  a  promise,  relatmg  to  events  then  future.' 
I  reply,  that  as  it  respects  the  subject  in  dispute, 
I  care  not  whether  it  respects  events,  future  or 
present;  it  is  the  import  of  the  rite  itself,  upon 
which  we  dispute.  Is  it  used  to  signify  regene- 
ration? is  the  question;  whether  the  regenera- 
tion of  New  or  Old  testament  saints?  Let  Mr.  C. 
gain  his  point,  as  it  respects  futurity,  we  have 
gained  it,  in  signiftcation,*  the  only  thing  in  dis- 
pute. 

*This  77,  P.  of  Mr.  C's  work,  is  sufficient  to  de- 
stroy his  whole  theory,  although  he  had  been  or- 
thodox in  every  other  point,  and  to  my  mind  it 
bears  strong  evidence  of  this  fact;  that,  while  he 
is  struggling  hard  to  obtain  converts  to  his  public 
theory,  he  does  not  believe     it  himself,  e.  g.     'I 


BAPTISM.  155 

This  difFerence,  the  Baptist  have  always  made; 
because  tli**y  i-.re  deitrmirif^d  that  circumcision 
shall  be  proved  to  b(  a  rite  only  carnal.  They 
know,  if  the  contrary  is  proven,  their  peculiar 
system  is  no  more.  'Let  God  be  true,  and  every 
man  a  liar.'  After  all  thur  exertion.^,  they  have 
lost  their  aim.  It  is  not  a  national  distinction, 
for  it  did  not  distinguish  them  from  other  nations. 
It  was  no  security,  for  the  possession  of  the  land 
of  Canaan,  because  many  of  the  specified  subjects 
of  the  Old  covenant,  never  did  inherit  that  land, 
although  Ihey  were  as  willing  and  obedient  as 
those  were,  who  did  inherit  it;  and  every  thing 
else  taught  by  circumcision  is  also  taught  by 
Baptism. 

6th.  Difference.     'Baptism  differs  from    circura- 

will  circumcise  ihiiie  lieart,  and  the   heart  of  thy 
sted,'  (this  word  seed.,  Mr.  C.  witlUiis  usual  free- 
dom, calls  children.     1  would  be  sprry  to  use  the 
same  freedom  with   tl.e   scriptures,)  he  declares 
respects  futurity  and  for  the  proof  of  this,  cites  the 
denunciations    and     promises    mentioned    in   the 
same  chapter,  which  respects  the  captivity  of  the 
Jivvs  and  thvir  return.     And,   therefore,  this  pro- 
mise  of    the    circumcision  of  the  heart  could  not 
take  place  until   more  than  Eight  hundred  years 
after  it  was  given.     This  denies,  that  any  Old  tes- 
tament saint,   until  that  time,  could    apply    this 
promise;  or,  in  other  words,  that  there  were  none 
circumcised   in  heart,    until    after  their  return, 
from   the   Babylonish  captivity;  a  fact,  which  nei- 
ther Mr.  C.  nor  any  of  his  followers  can  believe.  If 
I  have  now  done,  as  Mr.  Ralston  did,  let  the  world 
see  his  system,  he  will,  no  doubt,  add  it  to  his  list 
of  misrepresentations^ 


156  BAPTISM. 

*  cipion  in   the  part  of  tl  e    sys'em,  tliat  ivas  the 

*  subject  of  the    oper-tion.    P'  do  Baptists  apply 

*  water  to  the  face.  Surely  they  do  not  suppose 
^  that  the  Jews  crtumcised  in  the  face.  Baptists 
'  apply  wftter  to  the  whole  person.  Neither  Bap- 
'  tist  nor  Pedo  Baptist  applies  water  to  the  precise 

*  part.afFtcted  in  the  rite  of  circumcision.'    P.  13. 

It  16  difficult  for  me  to  discover  any  other  de- 
sign in  this  differetice;  than  a  little  prophane  sport. 
Even  Mr.  C.  could  not  think  that  this  ditference 
could  possibly  do  any  thing  for  his  system.  But, 
lest  any  reader  should  be  so  ignorant,  as  not  to 
discover  his  sophism,  we  shall  undress  it,  and  let 
him  see  it  as  it  is.  Did  baptism  come  in  the 
room  of  circumcision?  Mr.  C.  says,  No.  Wfjy? 
he  answers,  because  the  same  precise  parts  of  the 
human  body  are  not  affected  by  the  rites.  That, 
although  circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  and  of  the  same  covenant,  that  baptism 
also  is  a  seal,  yet  the  one  could  not  come  in  the 
roomof  the  other,  because  the  same  precise  parts 
were  not  affected  in  the  rites. 

The  weight  of  the  objection,  will  appear,  by  a 
plain  example.  The  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  40  years  ago,  ofdained  that  any  persons,  in 
giving  bonds,  notes,  &c.  should  subscribe  their 
names,  and  affix  a  cross ^  for  a  seal.  Last  session 
they  repealed  that  statute;  and  ordained  that  a 
circular  mark  made  with  a  pen,  ^.after  signing  the 
name,  should  be  the  seal  of  such  obligations. 
Mr.  C*s  heading  the  faction,  declares  that  the  cir- 
cular mark  could  not  possibly  come  in  the  room  of 
the  crosffmarfc,  for  this  unanswerable  reason,  that 
it  is  not  the  same  shape,  of  if,  by  the  same  act  of 
Congress,  the  part  of  the  paper  on  which  the  sig- 
nature and  seal  were  to  be  affixed,  was  also  chang- 


BAPTISM.  157 

ed,ihen  by  Mr.  C.  the  cross  warfc  cannot  come  in 
the  room  of  the  eircular  mark  because  the  seal  was 
to  be  lound  on  a  different  part  of  the  paper,  on 
which  the  bond  was  written. 

More  than  three  thousand  years  ago,  Christ  Je- 
sus, the  supreme  authority  over  the  church,  ordain- 
ed, that  tJie  cutting  off  a  piece  of  flesh,  should,  as 
a  maik,  be  a  seal  of  the  blessings  contained  in  the 
covenant  of  grace.  Nearly  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago,  he  changed  the  external  form  of  the  seal, 
and,  instead  of  the  painful  rite  of  circumcision,  he 
appointed  the  application  of  water.  Who  will 
hence  argue,  that  therefore,  baptism  did  not  come 
in  the  room  of  circumcision?  Mr.  C.  will  perhaps, 
say,  that  he  has  not  granted  that  circumcision  was 
a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  He  has  not  indeed 
granted  this;  but  I  observe  that  the  su6/ccf  in  dis- 
pute, is  not  thereby  atfecied.  He  may  call  these 
seals  or  not,  as  he  please? ;  but  he  is  here  proving  that 
the  one  could  not  come  in  the  room  of  the  other, 
because  they  afliected  different  parts  of  the  body. 
The  reasons  for  this  assertion,  is  the  only  thing 
here  to  which  we  have  called  the  attention  of  the 
reader. 

7th.  Difference.  'Baptism  differs  from  circum- 

*  cision  in  the  blessings  it  conveys.     Circumcision 
'  conveyed     no     spiritual      blessings.       Baptism 

*  conveys  no  temporal,  but    spiritual    blessings.' 
Page  13. 

To  this  difference  I  have  already  fully  replied. 
Had  the  assertion  of  Mr  C.  in  this  place  been  true, 
it  would  have  indeed  affected  the  point;  but  we 
have  proven  that  the  blessings  sealed  were  the 
same;  which  ends  all  the  intended  force  of  this  dif- 
ference. From  the  bantering  commencement  of 
Mr.  C,  on  these  seven  points  of  difference,  we  ex* 
P 


158  BAPTISM. 

pected  thathe  would  have  attempted  to  have  es- 
tablished his  position,  by  such  arguments  as  af- 
fected the  nature  of  the  ordinances.  No — he 
superficially  calls  the  attention  of  his  readers  to 
those  external  points  of  difference,  which  although 
they  had  been  true,  would  not  have  affected  the 
point  in  question;  this  last  difference  is  the  only 
exception,  and  its  assertion,  upon  investigation, 
is  found  not  true. 

We  shall  now  take  some  view  of  the  different 
methods  of  escape,  by  which  he  tries  to  rid  hini- 
self  of  the  force  of  objections. 

'  With  regard  to  their  not  circumcising  on  the 
'  8th  day  for  40  years;  while  travelling  to  Caanan; 
'  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose;  for  this  plain  reason, 
'  that  circumcision,  during  this  period,  was  entire- 
'  ly  given  up.     It  was  performed  at  no  age.'  P.  18. 

What  was  the  intention  of  Mr.  C.  by  this  obser- 
vation? It  was  to  save  himself  from  being  caught 
in  a  plain  absurdity.  He  had  been  proving  that 
baptism  could  not  come  in  the  room  of  circumci- 
sion, because  it  was  essential,  to  the  being  of  this 
rite,  that  it  be  administered  on  the  8th  day.  It  ap- 
pears Mr.  W.  had  denied  the  truth  of  his  assertion, 
and  declared  that,  by  divine  command,  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  the  Jews,  had  been  circumcised 
between  their  birth  and  fortieth  year;  no  covenant 
alteration  could  be  made  upon  the  passage  in 
Joshua,  upon  which  the  assertion  was  foundedi 
However,  the  part  quoted  from  Mr.  C's  book  ac- 
counts for  it,  and  the  reason  is  plain;  that  during 
this  period,  circumcision  was  er.tirely  given  up. 
I  grant  this,  Mr.  C. — but  what  will  your  plain  rea- 
son prove?  this  is  the  alone  conclusion,  that  there 
were  40  years  the  Jews  did  not  circumcise;  but 
every  person  grants  this.    Yet  the  matter  in  dis- 


BAPTISM.  159 

pute  is  not  thereby  affected.  The  dispute  is,  is 
there  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision, or  any  thing  in  the  divine  command 
that  forbids  the  administration  of  it,  on  any  other 
time,  than  on  the  eighth  day?  On  tliC  omission  of 
it  for  40  years,  we  agree;  but,  to  account  for  the 
administration  of  it  upon  those  with  whom  it  had 
been  omitted  for  40  years,  is  the  difficuUy.  Mr. 
C  says  it  was  confined  to  tiie  8th  day;  the  scrip- 
ture says  it  was  not;  and  might  with  propriety  be 
admitted  at  any  period  of  life. 

Any  person  who  can  read  his  bible,  may  detect 
the  falacj'  of  his  plan  of  plain  reasoning.  They 
will  indeed  see,  that  the  Jews  were  required  to  be 
circumcised  on  the  8th  day;  but  they  will  find  that 
the  requisition,  was  not  essential  to  the  being  of 
an  ordinance;  because  it  was  omitted  for  40  years, 
at  one  time,  and  after  that  during  the  whole  period 
of  its  continuation  in  the  church,  proselytes,  at  any 
age,  were  circumcised.  But,  if.  the  argument 
used  by  Mr.  C.  had  any  force,  it  would  prove,  that 
in  order  legally  to  administer  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision, it  was  as  neces?ary  to  perform  it  on  the  8th 
day  of  the  persons  life,  as  it  was  to  cut  off  a  piece 
of  flesh.  It  is  not  the  circumstances  accompany- 
ing the  rite  about  which  we  dispute;  but  we  dis- 
pute respecting  those  things  essential  to  the  be- 
ing of  the  rite  itself.  Where  now,  Mr.  C.is  your 
plain  reasoning,  to  prove  that  it  was  essential  to  the 
being  of  the  ordinance  to  administer  it  on  the  8th 
day? 

But  Mr.  C.  objects  to  the  assertion,  that  one  or- 
dinance came  in  the  room  of  another.  *  It  ap- 
'  pears  to  me  a  gross  departure  from  analogy,  from 
'  the  meaning  of  Jewish  rites,  and  from  matter  of 
'  fact,  to  say:     'That  baptism  came  in  the  room  of 


160  BAPTISM. 

*  circumcision.'    The  sacred   scriptures  do    not, 

*  as  far  as  I  can  understand  Ihem,  ever  lead  us  to 
'  think  that  one  rite  came  in  the  room  of  another, 
'  but  Ihej  teach  us,  that  Christ  came  in  the  room  of 
'  all  the  Jewish  rites — he  is  our  passover,  our   cir- 

*  cumcision  &  our  sacrifice.'  P.  19.  By  saying  that 
One  ordinance  came  in  the  room  of  another,  means 
no  more,  than  that  the  latter  occupies  the  room  of 
the  former.  All  the  ordinances  of  the  New  testa- 
ment came  in  the  room  of  those  that  were  under 
the  Old  testament,  or  we  have  these  ordinances, 
instead  of  those  the  church  formerly  had.  When 
we  say  that  the  particular  rite  of  baptism,  came  in 
the  room  of  circumcision,  we  mean  that  baptism 
occupies  the  same  place  in^e  present  dispensa- 
tion of  grace,  that  circum^ion  occupied  under 
tlie  former. 

Scarcely  asirgle  ordinance  how  has  tlie  same  pre- 
cise form  it  hnd  under  the  Old  testament;  even  the 
dispensation  of  the  word  by  the  Gospel  ministry, 
is  now  different,  from  that  which  it  was  then. 
Will  Mr.  C.  arirue  that  the  preaching  of  the  gos- 
pel, under  the  New  testament,  by  gospel  ministers, 
did  not  come  in  the  room  of  that  teaching  by 
priests  and  prophetij  under  the  ceremonial  law? 
we  mean  no  more  than  this,  when  we  say  tiial 
baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision. 

But  this  is  an  age  of  novelty.  'Christ  came  in 
the  room  of  all  Jewish  rites.'  That  HE  came 
the  substance  of  all  Jewish  rites,  at  least  such  of 
them  as  were  required  by  the  ceremonial  law, 
none  will  deny;  but,  that  he  came  in  their  room,  I 
suppose  none  except  Mr.  C.  ever  thought.  Christ 
is  indeed  called 'our  passover:'  because  he  was 
'the  Lamb  of  God' typically 'slain  from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world.'     HE  was  the  substance,  of 


BAPTISM.  161 

which  all  the  rites  of  that  feast  were  the  shadows; 
but  no  hint  is  given  that  he  came  in  the  roonfi  of 
the  passover. 

Let  us  hear  him  further  on    this  subject.     'I 

*  would  now  ask  my  opponent,  If  baptism  came  in 

*  the  room  of  circumcision,  why  were  so   many 

*  thousands  of  the  Jews  baptised,  who  had  been  pre- 
'  viously  circumcised?     This,  on  the  principles  of 

*  my  opponent,  was  a  mere  tautology.  If  baptism 
'  and  circumcision  are  alike,  the  same  seals  of 
'  the  same  covenant,  why  administer  both  to  ^.he 
^  same  subjects?' P.  19.     In  reply  1  observe, 

1st.  That  in  the  change  of  a  dispensation,  the 
members  then  existing,  must  be  the  subjects  of 
both  dispensations.  The  same  individual  persons, 
whose  duty  it  was  to  have  offered  sacrifices  during 
the  life  and  public  ministry  of  Christ  on  earth, 
would  have  been  guilty  of  a  gross  violation  of  the 
Divine  law,  had  they  continued  Ihe  same  practi- 
ces after  his  death.  In  like  manner  circumcision 
was  a  duly  which  a  parent  was  bound  to  discharge, 
until  another  ordinance  took  its  place;  but  the 
substitution  of  baptism  in  its  room,  as  completely 
destroyed  the  sacramental  existence  of  circumci^ 
cion,  as  if  it  never  had  an  existence. 

2nd.  It  is  impossible  to  make  the  same  persons 
subjects  of  both  dispensations,  without  making 
them  the  partakers  of  the  ordinances  of  both.  By 
their  circumcision,  they  acknowledged  all  the 
means  of  grace,  sealed  to  them  under  that  dispen- 
sation, in  their  particular  form  of  administration; 
but  the  same  persons  in  their  baptism,  publickly 
acknowledged  the  change,  declared  themselves 
members  of  the  new  dispensation  of  the  same  cov- 
enant, and  thereby  openly  acknowledged  that 
Christ  the  substance  of  all  the  cerimonial  law,  wa? 
P  « 


.162  BAPTISM. 

come,  and  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  him- 
self. 

Mr.  C.  should  have  shewn  us  in  what  manner, 
the  same  persons  could  have  been  constituted 
members  of  both  di«!pensations  of  grace,  without 
giving  them  1  he  se:ih  of  both.  He  keeps  his  dis- 
tance from  this  point,  lest  he  might  be  taken  in  a 
snare  of  tnUh.  Circunicision,  according;  to  Mr.  C. 
sealed  to  them  the  earthly  Canaan.  Then  by  bap- 
tism they  renounced  all  claim  toth.it  country;  ev- 
ery man  lost  bis  title  to  his  farm.  By  circumcision 
they  declared  themselves  the  natural  seed  of 
Abraham,  alti)ought.hpy  had  been  Hittites  or  Am- 
orites;  by  baptism,  they  declared  they  were  not  his 
seed.  By  circumcision  they  incorporated  them- 
selves with  the  Jewish  nation.  By  bap.ism  they 
dischimed  their  own  nation.  The>e  are  Mr.  C's. 
odd  doctrines — vviio  can  believe  him.^ 

The  truth  is,  that  those  saints  who  were  on  earth, 
during  the  life,  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
^vcre  members  of  the  Old  testament  church,  by 
their  circumcision;  and  by  baptism,  were  con- 
stituted members  of  the  New  te-itament  church. 

3rd.  Baptism  was  a  New  testament  seal;  it  se- 
cured all  the  covenant  blessings,  sealed,  by  cir- 
cumcision; the  covenant  was  the  same,  but  the 
form  of  the  seal  was  very  different,  as  was  the  whole 
dispensation.  It  was  necessary  in  the  change  of 
dispensation,  that  there  should  also  be  a  change 
of  seal ;  but,  at  the  time  of  this  change,  there  could 
be  no  change  of  persons;  it  follows  that  those  who 
had  been  initiated  by  circumcision  into  the  former, 
mast  now  be  admitted  into  the  latter,  by  baptism. 
As  they  lived  under  both  dispensations  of  grace, 
how  could  they  otherwise  be  initiated  into  both.'' 

But,  ia  order  to  Qonfirm  his  assertion  on  this 


BAPTISM.  163 

point,  he  presents  you  with  a  strange  supposition. 
'  Upon  the  same  princ'ph*,  if  all  the  Jtnvs  had  liv- 
'  ed  to  that  time,  and  believed,  they  would  all  have 
'  been  baptized.  What  would  have  come  of  their 
'  circumcision  then?'  P.  19.  I  answer,  the  same 
thing  that  came  of  all  their,  sacrificts,  temple 
worship,  &c.  Instead  of  which  we  have  now  our 
New  testament  worship.  Abraham,  the  first  initi- 
ated by  circumcision,  as  a  seal,  'saw  the  day  afar 
off'  when  baptism  would  take  the  room  of  circtim- 
cision,  'and  was  glad.'  With  the  same  propriety 
I  might  ask.  If  all  the  Jews  that  ever  existed,  had 
lived,  when  baptism  was  introduced,  what  would 
have  comt*  of  their  sacrifices  then? 

The  difference  of  the  fifficacy  of  these  two  or- 
dinances, forms  another  strong  reason  with  Mr.  C. 
why  baptism  could  not  come  in  the  room  of  cir- 
cumcision. His  observations  scarcely,  however, 
merit  transcription.  'Although  they  had  the  be- 
'nefit  of  circumcision  for  so  many  hundred  years, 
'Moses  declares,  'The  Lord  hath  not  given  you 
'  an  heart  to  perceive,  and  eyes  to  see,  and  ears  to 
'  hear,  unlo  this  day.  Where  now,  are  the  spiritu- 
'al  blessings  promised  to  the  subjects  of  circum- 
'cisionas  such!  What  spiritual  blessings  had  it 
'secured  foB  so  long  a  time!!  P.  77.  This  ap- 
pears rather  like  a  iciJful  misconstruction  of  scrip- 
ture. Mr.  C.  infers  from  the  passage  quoted,  that 
for  several  hundred  years,  the  subjects  of  circum- 
cision had  not  been  regenerated,  justified,  or  san- 
tified.  Tiien,  he  asks  with  an  air  of  triumph, 
what  good  had  their  cirrumcision  done  them? 
Were  there  no  saints  during  these  several  hun- 
dred years?  He  docs  not  deny  tht  re  wtre  saints 
under  that  dispensation;  nay, he  even  condescends 
to  grant  it;  P.  44.     For,  although  he  supposes  'Ju- 


164  BAPTISM. 

daism  to  be  no  better  than  Gentilism,'  yet  some- 
hmt)  there  were  saints  at  that  time.  But  saints  as 
they  were,  'they  had  not  a  heart  to  perceive,  eyes 
to  see,  and  ears  to  hear.'  Will  this  do  for  a  true 
character  of  saints?  no.  What  then  must  be  the 
true  import  of  the  words?  That  notwithstanding 
the  administration  of  grace  to  these  people  for 
400  years,  there  were  m?ny  found  who  had  not 
'hearts  to  perceive,  eyes  to  see,  and  ears  to  hear.' 
Which  is  equally  true  of  Gospel  despisers  in  every 
age  of  the  church.  With  these,  circumcision  had 
the  same  influence,  that  baptism  had  with  Simon 
Magus,  or  with  any  other  subject  that  is  not  rege- 
nerated. 

If  Mr.  C's.  observation  has  any  meaning,  it  is, 
that  boptism  has  some  intrinsic  efficacy  in  giving 
'hearts  to  perceive,  eyes  to  see,  and  ears  to  hear.' 
For  otherwise,  there  can  be  no  difference,  even 
intended.  He  then  acquiesces  in  the  doctrines  of 
the  Fathers  who  hold  baptism  to  be  regeneration , 
for  if  it  be  not,  what  efficacy  has  it,  more  than  cir- 
cumcision. Therefore  Mr.  C.  should  not  touch 
the  Fathers,  or  the  Roman  Catholicks  on  this  point. 

Perhaps  Mr,  C.  will  clear  himself  by  his  usual 
'as  stich.'  Was  Moses  speaking  to  them  as  the 
subject"  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision?  Mr.  C. 
should  answer,  no;  beause  'hearts  to  perceive, 
eyes  to  see,  and  ears  to  hear,'  were  spiritual  bles- 
sings; and  therefore  did  not  belong  to  that  cove- 
nant. W^ill  Mr.  C.  say  he  vv^as  addressing  them, 
as  the  subjects  ot  that  covenant?  He  then  relin-  ' 
quishes  the  point  in  dispute.  If  he  says,  the  con- 
trary, his  'as  such'  will  be  of  no  use. 

The  above  is  an  instance  of  Mr.  C's.  honesty. 
It  is  evident  from  P.  44,  that  he  believes  there 
were  saints  at  that  time;  yet,  now,  when  he  has 


BAPTISM.  165 

another  purpose  to  answer,  he  will  give  this  pas- 
sage a  contrary,  significaUon.  Although  he  should 
succeed  in  proving  what  he  intends,  that  there 
were  no  saints  at  that  time,  he  still  fails  in  esta- 
blishing this  difference.  The  extent  of  our  asser- 
tion is,  that  the  grace  and  othrr  spiritual  bless- 
ings, which  Old  testament  believers  had,  were 
sealed  to  them  by  circumcision;  but,  if  his  asser- 
tion be  true,  still  circumcif^ion  sealed  as  much  to 
them  as  baptism  does  to  the  unregenate  persons 
baptized.  But,  if  they  were  saints,  then  circum- 
cision sealed  to  them, that  which  baptism  seals  to 
saints  now. 

Upon  Mr.  C's.  attempt  to  prove  that  baptism 
did  not  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  the  fol- 
lowing observations  will  be  found  true. 

1st.  That  heis  coBipflled  to  change  his  ground, 
and  adopt  principles  ncio  even  (o  baptists;  asser- 
tions, at  which  Dr.  Gdl  or  Mr.  Bootli  would  have 
blushed.  He  finds  no  difficulty  in  asserting  tliat 
circumcision  was  not  a  religious  (»rdinance;  that 
it  secured  a  country  to  millions  who  never  saw  it, 
neither  they,  nor  their  seed.  What  will  reflecting 
minds  think  of  this  doctrine?  or  does  Mr.  C.  think 
he  IS  writing  to  people  of  the  12th  century,  or  to 
those  who  will  at  all  times  be  satisfied  with  round 
assertion? 

2nd.  It  is  evident  that  he  does  not  appear  seri- 
ous in  anything  he  says  on  that  subject.  Had  he 
possessed  sufficient  candor  to  have  carried  out 
any  system  on  this  point,  it  must  either  have  been 
too  ridiculous  for  even  his  friends  to  have  believ- 
ed; Of  else,  after  all  his  opposition,  he  would  have 
established  the  assertion,  that  baptism  came  in  the 
room  of  circumcision;  but  in  this  he  dare  not  pro- 
ceed; he  ofteo  suddenly  stops  and  fills  the  vacuum 


166  BAPTISM. 

with  declamations;  e.  g.  P.  77, 78.  He  joins  with 
fanaticks,  in  rejoicing  iii  their  nets  light.  As  Mr. 
C.  fails  in  language,  to  express  his  detestation  of 
Peda-Baptism; — so  the  shakers  fail  in  either  sOngs 
or  tunes,  to  celebrate  their  discovery  that  the  re- 
surrection is  past;  that  they  are  now  glorified 
saints:  and,  therefore,  use  reels,  &c.  without 
word?,  to  express  it.  With  them  Mr.  C.  exclaims, 
*0  human  tradition,  how  hast  thou  biassed  the 
^judgment  and  blinded  the  eyes  of  them  that 
*  should  know.' 

V.  PROPOSITION. 


Thai  infants  of  professing  parents  are  fit  mem- 
bers of  the  visible  church;  and  may  be  acknow- 
ledged such,  by  administering  to  them  baptism,  an 
initiating  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

"VVe  establish  the  truth  of  this  proposition;  first, 
from  the  moral  relation  existing  between  parents, 
and  children.  Relation  always  precedes  obliga- 
tion, and  is  of  the  same  nature,  Natural  obliga- 
tion springs  'from  natural  relation;  moral  obliga- 
tion, from  moral  relation.  These  principles,  I 
believe,  are  not  denied.  Parents,  in  virtue  of  this 
moral  relation,  are  bound  to  use  every  means,  both 
by  example  and  precept,  to  'train  up  their  chil- 
dren in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.' 
And  children,  upon  the  same  principle,  are  bound 
to  receive  and  obey  this  instruction.  Hence  the 
divine  declaration  respecting  Abraham,  Gen.  18. 
19.  'For  I  know  him,  that  he  will  command  his 
children,  and  his  household  after  him.'  The  ex- 
istence of  this  relation,  and  the  promise  for  the 
continuation  of  it  in  the  chruch;  was  a  comfortable 


BAPTISM.  1^ 

doctrine  to  King  Hezekiah  in  his  affliction.  Isaiah, 
38.  19.  'The  father  to  the  childreu,  shall  make 
known  thy  truth.' 

If  it  be  a  fact,  that  there  is  such  a  relation  be- 
tween parents  and  children,  and  such  privileges 
resulting  from  it,  then  I  ask,  where  is  the  impro- 
priety in  giving  children  the  seal  of  these  bless- 
ing'*? or  are  Biptists  prepared  to  say,  that  chil- 
dren shall  be  the  heirs  of  these  privileges,  and 
yet  be  denied  the  seal  of  them.  That  this  princi- 
ple may  be  more  fully  understood,  I  shall  make  a 
tew  plain  observations. 

1st.  That  moral  obligation  may  exist  in  its  full 
force,  whei  e  there  is  no  natural  relation,  as  is  often 
the  case  between  rulers  and  subjects,  .guardians 
and  children  placed  under  their  care;  but,  at  the 
same  time  a  covenant  is  supposed  to  exist,  which 
secures  to  both  parties,  privileges,  to  vv^h<cli  each 
are  entitled,  according  to  the  stipulations  of  this 
covenant.  While  this  relation  subsists,  neither  of 
the  parties  can  divest  themselves  of  the  obligation 
or  lose  their  title  to  the  privileges;  only  by  forfei- 
ture there  is  a  dissolution  of  contrac*. 

2nd.  That  infants  may  be  the  subjects  of  such 
a  covenant  is  evident  from  fact.  A  nation,  con- 
sisting of  rulers  and  ruled,  are  mutually  bound  to 
each  other  by  covenant.  But  the  children  of  ci- 
tizens are  entitled  to  all  the  security  and  protec- 
tion of  their  parents;  and  this,  while  in  a  state  of 
infancy,  before  they  can  give  any  consent  to  the 
national  constitution  or  covenant.  It  follows, 
that  babes  are  a  party  in  a  covenant,  entitled  to 
its  privileges,  and  grow  up  under  its  obligation, 
when  they  possess  no  knowledge  of  either. 

Now,  it  is  vain  to  stop  and  ask,  what  good  does 
it  do  these  children  to   have   them  comitituted 


168  BAPTISM. 

members  of  such  a  nation,  when  they  have  no 
knowledge  of  its  constitution  or  laws.  Suffice  it 
to  say,  that,  in  every  age  of  the  world,  it  was  a 
fact,  it  was  their  privilege,  and  establishes  this 
principie,  j^o  much  haied  by  the  Baptists,  that 
children  may  po?sess  a  seal  to  a  covenant,  and 
have  its  privileges  before  they  can  have  any 
knnwledare  i-f  it.* 

3rd.  That  a  family,  consisting  of  parents  and 
children,  is  a  nation  in  miniature,  and-granted  by 
all,  to  be  the  first  bf-ginning  of  civil  government. 
And  it  fares  with  a  family  as  it  does  with  a  nation. 
According  to  the  state  of  the  nation,  with  respect 
to  privileges,  the  stfite  of  the  subjects,  are  good 
or  bad.  So  is  it  with  a  family.  If  the  parents 
are  poor,  so  are  the  children,  if  rich,  the  ctiildren 
are  born  the  be'rs  of  the  estate;  and  this  is  secur- 
ed to  the  children  by  contract,  although  the  pa- 
rents should  die  intestate,  and  the  children  be  in- 
fants at  the  time  of  their  death.  In  a  word,  what- 
ever is  the  privilege  of  the  parents,  is,  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  the  privilege  of  their  chil- 
dret.  a'so, 

4th.  That  this  moral  relation  existing  between 
parents  aiid  children,  is  formed  by  God  himself, 
as  truly  as  he  constituted  the  relation  between  kings 
and  subjects  under  a  theocraticai  government. 
While  infants  are  incapable  of  watching  over 
themselves  in  any  degree,  he  has  appointed  their 
parents  their  guardians. 

But,  when  we  view  this  subject,  and  consider 

*l  shall  afterwards  shew,  in  its  proper  place, 
that  this  principle  is  conceded  by  baptists,  in  con- 
stituting children  members  of  a  national  cove- 
nant by  circumcision. 


BAPTISM.  169 

these  principles  in  the  chuTcb,  'a  holy  nation,  a 
peculiar  people,'  they  appear  in  all  their  force.  It 
is  surely  granted  that  it  is  the  privilege  of  children 
to  have  G^dly  professing  parents,  to  have  parents 
under  vows  to  God  in  the  church,  to  warn  them 
according  to  the  laws  of  his  house,  and  teach 
them  the  worth  of  their  own  privilege,  hy  giving 
them  suitable  relig-ious  institutions. 

Parents,  I  grant,  are  morally  bound  to  tlns.duty; 
but  professing  parents  are  bound,  by  covenant  to 
thes€  duties;  and  to  these  they  have  engaged 
when  they  affixed  a  seal  to  the  coveBantof  grace. 

The  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works,  estab- 
lishes the  truth  of  my  assertion.  Although  in  ma- 
ny respects,  the  relation  between  Adam  and  his 
posterity,  is  very  different  from  that  relation  ex- 
isting between  parents  and  children,  yet,  in  this 
they  agree,  that  Adam  was  constituted  an  agent 
for  his  family,  the  human  race;  so  that  all  who 
spring  from  him,  partake  of  the  effects  of  his  agen- 
cy. In  like  manner,  parents  are  divinely  consti- 
tuted agents  of  their  respective  families.  The  vi- 
olation of  the  positive  precept  in  the  covenant  of 
works  by  Adam,  was  the  violation  of  the  same  by 
all  his  posterity:  or  had  he  partaken  of  the  tree  of 
life  in  a  state  of  innocency,  it  would  have  been  a 
seal  securing  to  him  and  all  his  posterity,  the 
blessings  found  in  that  covenant,  although  the 
same  posterity  was  unborn.  The  reason  of  this 
was,  he  was,  by  God,  appointed  their  foederal  head, 
and  in  law  they  were  constituted  one.  If  a  nation 
employ  an  enribassador,with  powers  plenipotentia- 
ry, his  contract  is  theirs;  and  according  to  the  con- 
tract, the  nation  enjoys  benefits,  or  receives  trou- 
ble. 

-As  in  the  case  of  Adam,  so  also  in  the  case  of 
Q 


no  BAPTISM. 

all  parents;  the  Divine  Beinpr  chose  them.     In  the 
choice,  children  have  no  ageticy  whatever. 

But  this  doctrine,  as  it  represents  the  covenant 
of  works,  is  materially  conceded  by  Mr  C.  p.  159. 
'  The  token  or  seal  of  this  transaction,  vras  the 
'  tree  of  life;  which  was  to  him  a  token,  and  formal 
'  guarentee,  that  life  would  be  enjoyed,  on  condi- 
'  tion  of  his  obedience:'  which  of' course  would 
have  been  the  same  to  all  his  posterity.  I  there- 
fore argue,  and  that  from  principles  conceded: 
that,  if  the  moral  relation  of  Adam  to  liis  posterity 
was  such,  that  a  seal,  through  him,  could  be  ad- 
ministered to  every  one  of  his  children,  although 
unborn;  and  this  because  he  was  divinely  consti- 
tiLted  their  agent;  that,  therefore,  a  seal,  tiirough 
the  relation  of  parents  to  their  children,  may  be 
justly  administered  to  their  children,  after  they 
are  born. 

In  all  the  transactions  of  life,  by  contract,  the 
doctrine  of  infant  baptism  is  recognized,  we  bind 
ourselves  and  our  heirs.  Considering  the  minor- 
ity of  our  children,  we  deal  for  them,  under  this 
consideration,  that  \^e  are  their  agents  and  they 
incapable  of  understanding.  We  mention  duties 
to  be  performed  by  them,  and  in  their  name  we 
seal  contracts.  The  conduct  even  of  baptists, 
contradict  their  theory  on  baptism.  Their  princi- 
ples, if  true,  destroys  almost  all  contracts  in  life 
I  therefore  reason: 

If  parents  may  contract  and  seal  the  same  for 
their  infant  offspring;  then  infant  baptism  is  right. 
But  the  former  is  true,  and  therefore  the  latter. 

But  take  a  look  at  the  baptists  syllogism. 

If  children,  by  their  ignorance  and  want  of  faith, 
are  incapable  of  understanding  the  contract,  rt" 
covenaQt  of  grace;  then  children  n»ust  not  be  bap- 


BAPTISM.  ni 

tized.  But  the  former  is  true  and  therefore  the 
lalter. 

Apply  the  same  argument  to  other  things  and 
you  Ts  ill  immediately  see  its  genuine  force. 

If  children  by  their  ignorance  and  want  of  know- 
ledge, are  incapable  of  understanding  a  contract, 
or  covenant;  then  children  must  not  be  parties  in 
a  covenant,  or  contract.  But  the  former  is  true 
and  therefore  the  latter.  Now,  every  person  that 
ever  saw  a  bond  or  will,  knows  this  conclusion  to 
be  false.  But  such  is  the  argument  of  baptists  a- 
gainst  infant  baptism. 

The  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  is  universally 
recognized  in  scripture.  It  was  entirely  unneces- 
sessary  either  fo  give  any  precept  in  so  many 
words,  requiring  the  baptism  of  infants;  or  yet 
mention  the  case  of  individual  children  baptized. 
This  seal,  in  scripture,  was  established  in  the 
chuch,  for  more  than  a  thousand  years,  and  thou- 
sands of  examples  given  us  of  infants  initiated  by  it; 
and,  although,  as  we  have  shewn,  the  form  of  the 
seal  differed,  yet  its  nature  did  not  undergo  any 
change.  To  this  seal  the  Jews  had  been  accus- 
tomed from  its  first  institution  in  Abraham.  Tiiere 
could  be  no  necessity  to  repeat  that^o  well  under- 
stood by  fhe  ancient  church. 

It  would  indeed  have  been  an  evident  curtail- 
ing of  the  privileges  of  the  church  of  Christ,  had 
the  in/arts  of  the  New  testament,  been  excluded 
from  that  security,  or  from  those  privileges  to 
which  infE\nt  membersof  the  Old  testament  church 
were  entitled.  They  would  have  complained, 
that  the  children  of  their  fathers  were  received 
members  of  the  visible  church,  while  their  chil- 
dren were  excluded.  Nay,  that  they  enjoyed  a 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  an  intimation  of  their 


173  BAPTISM, 

security,  right  and  title  of  its  blessings;  while  their 
children  must  be  raised  like  the  children  ofhea- 
theng. 

The  baptists,  from  this  specious  but  false  reason, 
deny  the  warrantableness  of  infant  baptism;  be- 
cause, the  persons  baptized,  are  not  only  incapable 
of  believing,  but  also  of  discharging  the  duties 
required  in  (he  covenant.  While  yet,  it  will  be 
easily  made  appear,  that  they  concede  the  princi- 
ples of  Pedo  Baptists  in  full.  They  declare  that 
the  rite  of  circumcision  constituted  the  infants  of 
the  Jews,  members  of  their  nation.  'The  promise 
'  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  not,'  says 
Mr.  C.  'made  to  the  Jews,  as  members  of  the 
church; 'but   of  the  nation,' 

It  is  granted,  that  infant  children  are  not  only 
incapable  of  believing,  but  also  of  discharging 
the  duties  required  of  professing  members.  But 
I  assert,  (hat  they  are  as  capable  of  discharging 
the  dnties  required  of  professing  members  of  the 
visible  church,  as  they  are  »f  doing  the  duties  of 
a  civil  citizen.  Accordingly,  on  Mr.  C's  plan  of 
reasoning,  I  argue  that  circumcision  was  not  a 
seal  of  admission  into  the  Jewish  nation,  because 
it  was  absurd,  to  constitute  any  person  a  civil  citi- 
zen, who  was  incapable  of  discharging  any  of  the 
duties  of  tha(  character.  The  momenta  person 
acquires  citizenship,  they  are  entitled  to  as  many 
of  the  privileges  as  they  are  capable  of  enjoying: 
and  bound  by  all  the  laws  of  the  nation.  Why 
then  does  Mr  C  and  o(her  baptists,  make  such  a 
lamentable  outcry  against  the  Pedo  Baptists,  for 
constituting  persons  members  of  the  visible 
church,  b'  cause  they  are  incapable  of  believing,  or 
obeying  the  divine  law,  in  any  respect,  seeing  they, 
at  the  same  time,  argue   that  infants  were,   by  the 


BAPTISM.  173 

divine  command,  constituted  members  of  a  civil 
kingdom,  and  agreed  that  they  were  placed  in 
such  circumstances,  as  that  they  are  under  every 
civil  obligation,  and  yet  are  unable  to  discharge 
any  of  the  duties  of  that  relation?  Let  us  compare 
the  baptist  and  Pedo  Baptist  concessions  on  this 
subject,  and  their  similarity  will  strike  any  reader. 
Bap.  A  child,  as  the  member  of  a  nation,  is  en- 
titled to  the  security  and  protection  of  that  nation. 

P.  Bap.  A  child,  as  the  member  of  a  church,  is 
entitled  totthe  security  and  protection  of  Christ, 
the  King  and  Head  of  the  church. 

Bap.  A  child,  as  the  member  of  a  nation,  has  a 
tempored  subsistence  secured  by  the  pronnise  of 
that  nation. 

P.  Bap.  A  child,  as  the  member  of  the  church, 
has  a  spiritual  subsistence  secured  by  the  promise 
of  Christ,  King  and  Head  of  the  church. 

Bap,  A  child,  although  in  a  state  of  infancy, 
was  constituted  the  public  member  of  a  nation 
by  covenant,  and  the  same  confirmed  by  circumci- 
sion, a  pubhc  seal  of  the  same. 

P.  Bap.  A  child,  although  in  a  state  of  iufancy, 
is  constituted  a  public  member  ofth.e  chiirch  by 
covenant,  and  the  sanie  confirmed  by  baptism,  a 
public  sea^lo^"  the  same. 

It  is  hence  evident,  that,  by  -whatever  argument 
a  baptist  will  urge  against  a  Pedo  baptist,  ihat  a 
child  is  disqualified  by  its  infancy  from  becoming 
a  member  of  the  church,  a  Pedo  baptist  will  urge, 
precisely  the  same  against  their  becoming  mem- 
bers of  a  nation.  And  I  might  further  add,  that 
an  infant  citizen  of  a  nation  is  bound,  in  virtue  of 
the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to  the  nation, 
to  become  acquainted  with  the  laws  of 
iti  nation,  and  to  render  obedience  to  the  same. 
Q  2 


174  BAPTISM. 

In  like  manner,  an  infant  citizen  of  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,  is  bound  by  virtue  of  the  relation  in  which 
it  stands  to  the  church,  to  become  acquainted  with 
Jier  laws,  and  yield  obedience  to  the  same,  ft  fol- 
lows, that  every  possible  objection  which  Mr.  C. 
or  any  baptist,  can  bring  against  the  church  mem- 
bership of  infants,  stands  equally  against  their  citi- 
zenship; and  on  the  contrary,  we  may  justly  ar- 
gue upon  the  principles  of  common  sense,  that  as 
children,  by  circumcision,  even  by  the  concession 
of  the  baptists,  are  constituted  members  of  a  king- 
dom, in  which  activity  is  required,  and  yet  are  in- 
capable of  being  active:  There  is  nothing  absurd 
in  constituting  them  members  of  the  visible  church, 
jn  which  nothing  more  is  required,  in  relation  to 
its  laws. 

Mr.  C.  spends  a  considerable  time,  in  sporting 
upon  this  question,  'what  good  does  infant  sprink- 
ling do  its  subjects.'  I  reply  that,  allowing:  the 
difference  of  relation  and  privilege,  it  does  as 
much  good,  as  constituting  them  citizens  of  a  ci- 
vil kimgdom  by  circumcision.  They  are  equally 
capable  of  obeying  the  laws,  and  enjoying  the  pri- 
vilege of  both. 

We  shall  now  attejid  to  his  view  oi  this  subject. 
His  great  levity  of  expression,  so  inconsistent  with 
the  solemn  subject,  shall  not  receive  any  further 
notice,  than  what  is  absolutely  necessary  to  do 
Kis  arguments  justice. 

'VViien  I  hear  any  Pedo-Baptist,  pleadings  foF  the 
'baptism  of  infants,  upon  the  footing  of  the  faith 
'  of  the  parents,  that  is,  on  the  footing  of  carnal 
'  generation,  it  brings  to  my  recollection,  the  re- 
'  ply  of  John  the  baptist,  made  to  the  Jews,  who 
*  solicited  baptism,  upon  the  footing  of  their  great, 
'  great,  great,  many  times  great  grand  father^ 
'Abrahaai.    They  were  as  confident  of  the  valid* 


BAPTISM.  >       175 

*ity  01*  their  claim,  as  any  modern  Pedo-Baptist.' 
Page,  20,  21. 

In  what  sense  does  Mr.  C.  use  the  word  faith. 
If  by  it,  he  means  any  thing  more,  than  the  faith 
of  pi^rcnts  expressed  by  their  public  profession, 
he  has  been  terrified  by  an  apparition,  the  creature 
of  his  own  brain.  An  honest  writer  who  makes 
the  edification  of  his  opponent  an  object,  will  take 
care  to  use  the  words  in  the  sense,  in  which  they 
are  commonly  used.  He  must  know  that  Pedo- 
Baptists,  mean  no  more,  when  they  'plead  for  the 
baptism  of  infants,  upon  the  footing  of  the  faith  of 
the  parents;'  than  we  do  when  we  say,  that  Ja- 
cob should  be  circumcised,  when  an  mfant,  be- 
cause Isaac  his  father,  was  a  public  professor  in 
the  church — we  mean  no  more  than  Mr.  C.  does 
when  he  says  that  Joseph  should  be  circumcised 
at  eight  days  old,  because  a  title  to  the  land  of 
Canaan  was  vested  in  Isaac  his  father,  and  a  pro- 
mise made  of  that  land  to  him,  through  his  fatner. 
Or  if  any  should  have  asked  King  Dayid;  if  he  be- 
lieved in  the  doctrineof  circumcising  infants,  he 
would  have  replied,  yes:  he  even  solicited  cir- 
cumcision 'upon  the  footing  of  his  great,  great, 
great  many  times  great  grand  father  Abraham.'* 

Parents  baving  claimed  the  promises  of  the  co- 
venant of  grace  for  themselves,  and  having  declar- 
ed the  same  by  a  public  profession,  have,  in  the 
divine  constitution  of  things,  the  seal  of  the  same 

*The  reader  will  forgive  me  forusmg  Mr.  C's. 
language,  I  only  do  it,  to  let  you  see  that  his  lan- 
guage is  equally  subversive  of  the  rite  of  circumci- 
sion. I  do,  indeed,  think  his  language  prv>fane,  I 
believe  that  he  is  only  making  sport  ou  the  sub- 
ject of  Baptism. 


nS  BAPTISM. 

privileges,  offered  to  their  children.  In  the  same 
sense,  that  God  gave  the  promise  to  Abraham,  and 
bis  children,  Peter  declares  to  his  congregation 
'the  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children.'  The 
promise  to  Abraham  was,  'I  will  be  thy  God  and 
the  God  of  thy  seed.' 

But  what  connexion  did  Mr.  C.  find  between 
the  expressions,  'upon  the  footing  of  the  faith  of 
the  parents,'  and  'upon  the  footii.g  of  carnal  gene- 
ration.' The  scripture  calls  Abraham  the  father 
of  the  faithful.  D(tes  Mr.  C.  suppose  that  he  was 
the  carnal  father  of  all  the  faithful?  If  he  does 
not,  V\'hy  does  he  i:je  the  expression  as  proving  the 
same  signification?  I  am  afraid  that  during  all 
the  time  he  was  a  Pedo-Baptist,  he  was  ignorant 
of  their  doctrines,  and  this,  the  probable  reason, 
why<  he  forsook  them. 

I  suppose  Mr.  C.  never  heard  a  Pedo-Baptist 
plead  for  a  right  to  the  baptism  of  children  'upon 
the  footing  of  carnal  gereration.'  That,  upon 
the  footing  of  carnal  relation  existing  between  pa- 
rents and  children,  carnal  benefits  flow,  is  not  de- 
nied; this  is  justly  plead  as  the  gro-.ind  for  the  pos- 
session of  estates,  fcc.  But,  thac  any  spiritual 
privileges  flow,  merely  on  the  footing  of  carnal 
relation,  is  never  plead.  The  Jews  were  the  car- 
nal descendants  of  Abraham.  He  was  tiieir  na- 
tural father.  They  were  hijs  natural  seed.  But 
ask  the  apostle  Paul,  if  this  be  the  ground  on 
which  they  received  their  spiritual  blessings;  he' 
answers,  no — It  was  not  because  they  were  his 
children  by  nature,  but  because  they  were  the  chil- 
dren of  the  promise.  It  follows  that  the  children 
of  professing  parents,  according?  io  the  flesh,  are 
also  their  seed  by  promise,  and  are  thereby  enti- 
tled to  a  seal  of  the  promise. 


BAPTISM.  177 

The  true  covenant  relation  existing  between 
Abraham  and  the  Jews,  when  thej  came  to  John 
to  be  baptized,  I  believe,  was  neither  understood 
by  them,  or  their  successor  in  opinion,  Mr.  C. 
Had  these  Jews  come  forward,  humbly  asking  the 
the  privilege  of  baptism,  as  a  people  in  professed 
covenant  with  God,  and  therefore  Abraham's  seed, 
John  would  have  baptized  them  without  reproof. 
But  it  appears  they  were  of  the  mind,  with  those 
men  of  straw,  witli  whom  Mr.  C.  contends,  that  a 
carnal  relation  was  the  only  'entitling  prerequisite,' 
and  therefore  were  justly  reproved  when  they  de- 
manded the  administration  of  this  seal.  The 
HEAD  of  the  church,  indeed,  often  establishes  a 
spiritual  relation  when  there  is  a  pre-existing  car- 
nal relation; but  these  are  in  their  nature  entirely 
distinct.  The  one  may  exist  without  the  other. 
Believing  heathens  have  a  spiritual  relation  to 
Abraham,  and  this  existing  in  its  full  force,  being 
nothing  impaired,  by  the  want  of  cairnal  relation. 

It  is,  in  every  case,  necessary  to  determine,  who 
are  the  persons  professing  this  spiritual  relation; 
this,  when  determined,  should  decide  the  contro- 
versy. When  a  promise  is  given,  we  should  know 
the  person,  or  persons  to  whom  it  is  addressed; 
should  you  ask,  to  whom  are  the  promises  of  tlie 
gospel  addressed?  1  reply,  to  8iiiiier&  as  such: 
should  you  again  ask,  to  whom  is  the  seal  of  these 
promises  to  be  applied?  we  answer,  to  those  who 
by  a  covenant  relation  declare  that  the  blessings 
promised,  are  theirs.  Let  us  search  the  scriptures 
to  find  out  these  persons.  The  whole  Bible,  with 
one  voice,  declares  that  these  belong  to  believing 
parents  and  their  seed.  And  that  of  such  persons, 
the  church  of  Christ  is  constituted.  Let  the  fol° 
lowing  observation  be  admitted. 


17b  BAPTISM. 

1st.  That  the  church  all  holds,  at  least,  a  visible 
covenant  relation  to  Christ. 

2nd,  That  the  members  of  the  church  have  a 
professed  covenant  relation  to  one  another. 

3rd.  That  when  God  entered  into  a  covenant 
relation  with  Abraham,  every  item  of  that  cove- 
nant was  also  made  with  his  seed,  as  truly  the  babe 
as  the  adult.  The  only  qualification  there  speci- 
fied, was,  that  they  be  his  seed.  Neither  the  apos- 
tle Peter,  nor  any  other  Pedo-Baptist,has  plead  for 
any  thing  more,  than  that  which  is  contained  in 
the  assertion.  'The  promise  is  to  you,  and  to 
your  children.'  We  therefore  infer  that  those 
persons,  found  in  tlie  covenant  relation,  may  just- 
ly receive  the  seal  of  all  its  covenant  blessings. 
,4)1  this  may  be  true,  without  any  carnal  relation. 
Let  us  hear  him  a  little  further. 

'Mr.  W.  tells  us,  that  infants  may,  if  they  are 
'  obedient  to  the  divine  law,  after  (hey  grow  up  re- 
'  ceive  benefit  from  baptism.*  This  is  an  honest, 
'  though  I  presume,  an  unintentional  confession, 
'  that  they  receive  no  benefit  from  it;  either  at  the 
'time  of  receiving  it,  or  immediately  after.  But 
'  he  has  said,  that  infants  in  the  act  of  baptism,  are 
'laid  under  an  obligation  to  obedience;  that  the 
'vows  of  God  are  upon  them  thenceforth.  Let 
'  me  ask  how  many  years  old  are  they,  when  they 
'recognize  this  obligation.'  P.  33. 

The  substance  of  the  quotation  is,  that  no  ben-e- 
fit  results  from  'infant  sprinkling;'  of  this  he  fre- 
quently gives  hints.  But  in  his  appendix,  we  have 
a  black  list  of  evils,  resulting  from  it.  P.  180.     I 

■*This  is  a  part  of  Mr.  C's.  edition  of  Mr.  W's. 
speeches;  and  is  as  honest,  as  his  edition  of  many 
parts  of  the  bible. 


BAPTISI\^.  179 

reply,  that  benefit,  may  either  be,  sensibly  or  in- 
sensibly received.  An  infant  or  idiot,  of  parents- 
in  easy  and  independent  circumstances,  receives 
more  benefit  than  the  children  of  parents  in  diffi- 
cult circumstances  of  life:  they  are  insensible, 
however,  of  any  such  difference.  Yet  they  de- 
rive these  superior  favors,  upon  the  same  precise 
prmciples,  upon  which  we  plead  for  infant  bap- 
tism, that  is,  relati<m.  Because,  infants  receive 
previlegcs  according  to  the  standing  of  their  pa- 
rents. They  are  either  rich  or  poor,  as  their  pa- 
rents are  iti  riches  or  poverty. 

This  assersion  of  Mr.  C's.  lies  against  the 
strongest  evidence  of  fact.  Because  a  child,  if  it 
lives,  receives  both  immediate  and  future  benefit 
from  the  relation  it  has  to  its  parents.  But  \tis 
privileges  are  inconcievably  extended,  if  the  pa- 
rent be  religious,  it  has  thereby  secured  a  reli- 
gious education.  It  is  trained  up  in  tlie  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord;  it  has  an  early  op- 
portunity of.  ministerial  instruction,  being  raised 
"  beside  the  shepherd's  tent,'  when  born,  or  even 
when  It  becomes  a  living  soul,  an  everlasting  re- 
lation between  it  and  Christ  may  be  forn^ed;  it 
may,  'by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  the  re- 
newing of  tlie  Holy  spirit,'  be  as  full  an  heir  of 
everlasting  life,  as  the  most  experienced  saint. 
All  we  crave  for  this  child  is  a  visible  seal  of  these 
blessings. 

If  a  father  die  when  one  of  his  heirs  is  an  infant^ 
he  makes  it  equally  a  partaker  of  his  estate  with 
those  children  that  are  grown  to  years  of  maturity, 
when  the  babe  is  grown,  it  claims  the  interest  in 
the  will,  which  was  a  contract,  existing  between 
the  father  and  the  child,  although  the  child  was 
entirely  unconscious  of  the  whole  transaction,  at 


180  BAPTISM. 

the  time  of  engagement.  But  the  want  of  con- 
sciousiiess  neither  affects  its  rights  nor  privileges. 
I  suppose  that  none  of  these  facts  will  be  denied. 
From  these  principles  I  therefore  argue, 

1st.  That  a  child  may  be  visibly  sealed  an  heir 
to  the  testament  of  Christ,  from  which  it  may,  or 
may  not,  receive  any  benefit.  An  infant  may  be 
tlie  legal  heir  of  an  estate,  and  yet  by  profligacy, 
©r  death,  receive  no  benefit.  The  signature  and 
seal  of  the  parent,  is  the  visible  security  ot  the 
child,  and  yet  it  m;iy  never  secure  any  thing  profi- 
table to  it.  Mr.  C.  will  acknowledge  the  truth  of 
these  assertions,  because  circumcision,  which,  ac- 
cording to  his  assertion,  sealed  the  earthly  Canaan; 
if  the  child  either  died  in  infancy,  or  removed  in- 
to another  country,  it  received  no  benefit  from 
the  seal:  according  to  his  system  this  painful  rite 
was  administered  in  vain. 

2nd.  The  right  of  Esau,  Ishmael,  or  Jacob  to 
the  earthly  Canaan,  according  to  the  opinion  of 
Mr.  C.  was  the  same,  because  they  were  all  by  di- 
vine authority,  circumcised.  But  the  posterity  of 
one  of  these  only,  entered  in;  query,  of  what  use 
was  their  infant  circumcision? 

3rd.  There  is  a  difference  between  the  privile- 
ges and  obligation  of  a  bond;  and  discharging  and 
enjoying  the  same.  A  man  may  contract  in  behalf 
of  a  child,  by  which  the  minor  may  be  bound  to 
perform  certain  duties,  and  entitled  to  certain 
privileges;  and  yet  incapable  of  either  doing  the 
former,  or  enjoying  the  latter,  and  even  if  he  ar- 
rives to  years  of  maturity,  may  be  equally  inat- 
tentive to  both;  yet  this  neither  affects  the  moral 
propriety  or  validity  of  the  contract.  Again  Mr. 
C.  what  good  do  these  seals  do  minors.-* 

4th.  I  assert  that  baptism  possesses  the  same 


BAPT1SM»  1811 

intrinsic  validity,  when  applied  to  an  infant,  that 
it  does,  wlien  administered  to  an  adult.  It  does 
not  in  cither  case  possess  any  saving  power,  so 
a  will  confirmed  to  an  heir,  when  an  infant  posses- 
ses the  same  force,  that  it  would,  if  the  heir  was  an 
adult.  In  either  case  they  lose  or  enjoy  as  they 
ire  profligate,  or  soher. 

Baptists  appear  offended  with  those,  who  say, 
that  baptism  is  regeneration.  Mr.  C.  here  joins  the 
Pedo  Baptists  and  vociferates,  and  by  turns  sports 
upon  it,  in  his  usual  manner.  Yet  I  fear  he  wiH 
be  found  guilty  of  the  same  error,  and  on  this 
point  may  justly  give  the  bond  of  brotherhood  to 
Cyprian,  his  former  enemy.  If  I  here  blame  Mr. 
C.  improperly,  th^n  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
question,  'what  good  does  baptism  do  infants? 
For  if  it  may  be  said  that  baptism  abstractly  con- 
sidered, does  good,  it  will  follow,  that  it  has  a  sav- 
ing power,  or  it  is  the  doctrine  of  Cyprian  and 
others,  that  baptism  is  regeneration,  or  without 
union  to    Christ,  nothing  is  really  good. 

When  a  baptist  asks  the  question,  'what  good 
does  baptism  do  infants.^'  he  must  mean  that  if. 
docs  some  good  to  adults,  that  is,  that  it  either  re- 
generates them,  or  is  an  infallible  seal  of  regene- 
ration. The  greatest  hereticks  on  this  subject,  ne- 
ver attached  any  mor«  importance  to  this  ordinance 
than  those  just  expressed.  Mr.  C.  vvould  refuse  { 
suppose,  to  subscribe  the  following  sentiment,  not 
only  because  it  stands  in  opposition  to  his  ques" 
tion,  but  for  a  reason  still  more  important,  it  is  the 
production  of  the   Westminster  assembly.    *Th€ 

*  sacraments  become  effectual  means  of  salvationj 

*  not  from  any  virtue  in  them,  or  in  him  that  doth 
'  administer  them,  but  by  the  blessing  of  Christ 
^  and  the  working  of  his  spirit  in  them   that  by 


182  BAPTISM. 

'  faith   receive    them.'      Short    cat   quest.    91. 
'I  never  recollect'  says  Mr.  C.  'ef  any   Ihinj?  or- 

*  daiued  forthe  benefit  of  man,  or  any  thing  en- 
'  joined  upon  him,  by  divine  authority,  that  had 
'■  not  some  immediate  advantage,   resulting  to  the 

*  subject  who  obeyed,  according  to  the  truth. 
'  My  opponent  has  placed  all  the  advantages  of 
'  infant  sprinkling,  upon  a  slippf-ry,  per/iw^ps;  upon 
'  a  wonder  working  if.''  p.  33.  Was  not  circum- 
cision an  ordmance  of  divine  appointmeiil?  Al- 
though you  should  say  it  was  civil;  I  ask,  Mr.  C. 
what  benefit  immediately  resulted  to  the  t-ubject 
of  this  rite.''  If  he  says  national  protection,  so  I 
say  in  the  other  case,  church  protection.  For  if 
the  kings  of  the  earth  alford  their  infunt  subjects 
protection,  the  king  of  Zion  is  equally  able 
and  willing  to  guard  his  babes.  The  truth  is,  that 
in  whatever  shape,  Mr.  C.  can  turn  the  round  as- 
sertion I  have  last  quoted,  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision, is  ready  to  meet  him  in  the  face.  After  the 
child  was  circumcised,  there  was  a  great  variety 
of  events,  casualties,  &c.  tliatit  took  a  slippery  |)cr* 
haps  and  a  wonder  working  ?/,  to  put  him  in  the 
possession  of  that  land,  Mr.  C.  converts  the 
subject  upon  the  spot.  Baptism  is  a  Divine  ordi- 
nance, immediate  benefit  must  result.  Mr.  C.  ne- 
ver recollects  an  instance  of  its  failing.  Peter 
must  have  been  mistaken  about  Simon  Magus, 
Isaac  when  he  circumcised  Esau.  What  a  bless- 
ed thing  it  would  be,  to  be  baptized  by  Mr.  C. 

'But  he  has  said  infants  in  the  act  of  baptism  are 

*  laid  under  an  obligation  to  obedience,  that 
'  the  vows  of  God  are  upon  them.  Let  me  ask, 
^  how  many  years  old,  are  they,  when  they  recog- 
<  nise  this  obligation?     Shall  I  say   at    10   or  15 

*  years,  after  sprinkling,'  p,  33.    By  this  all  deedS;, 


BAPTISM.  183 

bonds,  conveyances  &c.  are  completely  destroyed, 
because  the  person,  or  persons  who  give  these  in- 
struments, bind  themselves  and  their  heirs.  In- 
stead of  casting  a  vail  over  the  subject,  by  loose 
declamation  Mr.  C.  should  have  defined  the  nature 
of  such  obligations,  upon  children,  before  the  age 
of  10  or  15  years:  or  let  me  ask  Mr.  Chow  many 
years  old  are  those  children,  thus  bound  before 
they  are  conscious  of  such  obhgations?  In  an- 
swenng  this  question  by  whatever  mode  he 
chooses,  he  will  answer  his  own  query. 

In  page  43.  he  closes  a  declamatory  speech, 
with  this  assertion,  when  speaking  of  infants. 
'  They  are  private  property,  the  property  of  pa- 
'  rents  and  not  the  property  of  the  church,  hence 
'  parents  as  such,  have  orders  how  to  bring  them 
'  up.'  To  look  at  this  afsertion  as  it  is,  it  is  suffi- 
ciently refuted. 

1st.  It  is  not  the  duty  of  the  church,  to  see  how 
their  youtli  behave. 

2nd,  It  is  as  absurd  for  ministers  to  direct  pa- 
rents, respecting  the  manner  of  training  up  their 
children  as  it  would  be  for  them  from  the  pulpit  to 
direct  their  members  how  to  break  liorses,  and 
train  cattle  for  the  plough,  because  horses,  cattle, 
and  children  are  equally  the  private  property  of 
farmers,  and  equally  under  the  care  of  the  pastor 
of  the  congregation. 

3rd.  Ministers  must  neither  teach  nor  reprove 
children  'Shall  I  say    under    10  or  15  years.' 

4th.  Hannah  and  her  husband  had  no  right  to 
deliver  up  Samuel  to  the  Lord,  by  yielding  him  up 
to  the  church,  when  he  was  a  young  child. 
1,  Sam.  1.  24.28. 

Mr.  C-  will  get  no  serious  person  to  yield  their 
assent  to  the  truth  of  the  assertion  above.    Because 


184  BAPTISM. 

It  is  evident  with  all  the  care  and  attention  of 
both  minlFttrs  and  parents  too  many  of  our  youth 
grow  up  in  carelessness;  but  it  is  indeed  surpri- 
sing to  find  a  raan  styling  himself  'Minister  of 
the  word  of  God'  exerting  allhis  power,  to  prevent 
ministers  and  others  from  eserting  Godly  influence 
over  youth.  In  a  vs'ord  why  does  Mr.  C.  say  chil- 
dren '  are  private  property,  the  property  of  pa  • 
'  rents,  and  not  the  property  of  the  church?'  Let 
us  compare  this  with  that  v/hich  God  himself  says 
Psal.  127,  3.  *Lo  children  .ire  an  heritage  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  fruit  of  the  womb  is  his  reward.'* 

But  Mr.  C.  now  tries  to  escape  by  an  old  baptist 
tract;  'I  ask,  does  not  the  baptism  or  sprinkling  of 

*Mr.  C.  can  satisfy  his  followers  with  something 
as  a  cure,  to  any  true  impression,  those  things 
may  make  on  tlieir  minds,  or  if  they  believe  his 
view  of  the  subject,  it  is  because  (hey  are  left  'to 
strong  delusions  to  believe  a  lie.'  Such  senti:nents 
Hi'ght  not  have  disgraced  Lord  Chesterfield, 
who  taught  his  son  to  be  profane,  but  they  certain- 
ly disgrace  the  character  Mr  C.  tries  to  assume, 
and  which  his  few  followers  tliink  he  possesses. 
Whatever  force  such  opinions  can  have  is,  with- 
out doubt,  demorilizing.  We  have  generally  blam 
ed  the  baptists,  for  raising  their  children,  hea- 
thens, in  a  land  where  Christianity  is,  but  these 
observations  only  respect  their  relation  to  the 
church.  But  Mr  C.  appears  in  full  on  the  subject, 
and  actually  orders  the  church  to  let  the  cliildrcn 
6f  their  members  alone,  that  they  have  nothing  to 
do  with  them.  'Tell  it  not  in  Gath;  publish  it  not 
:n  the  streets  of  Askelon,  lest  the  daughters  of  the 
Philistines  rejoice:  lest  the  daughters  of  the  uncir- 
cumcised  triumph.' 


BAPTISM.  185 

*  an  infant  require  a  positive  command?  And  I  call 
'  upon  my  opponent  to  shew  if  there  was  ever  a 
'  positive  institution  founded  solely  upon  reason  or 
'  inference.'  p'  48. 

What  does  Mr.  C.  mean,  by  positive  command  and 
positive  institution ;  Sind  these  as  distinct  from  moral 
commands?  Let  us  here  define  the  subject.  'By 
'  moral  positive,  or  positive  we  understand  those 
'  that  depend  entirely  for  their   moral  obligation, 

*  upon  some  express  precept  of  the  Deity;  the  pro- 

*  priety  of  which,  nature,  in  its  most  perfect  state 
'  could  not  discover.     Moral  precepts  are  such  as 

*  respect  our  duty  to  our  fellow  creatures;  and  are 
'  in  some  degree  more  or  less  discernible  by 
'  mankind,  even  now,  and  were  perfectly  so  pre- 
'  vious  to  thp    fall.'     'In    positive  institutions,  the 

*  obligation  is  altogether  in  the   command;  but  in 

*  moral  duties,  the  obligation  is  not  only  in  the  com- 

*  mand,  but  also  in  the  nature  of  things.  In  posi- 
'  tive  institutions  we  are  not  authorized  to  reason 
'  what  we  should   do,  but  implicitly  to   obey.     In 

*  moral  requirements,  we  are  clearly  shewn  and 
'  commanded  to  perform  certain  duties,  but  left 
'  at  liberty  to  reason,  to  know  in  what  these  duties 
'  consist-'*  p.  46.  47. 

If  I  understand  the  above  distinctiOB«,  the  senti- 
ment of  Mr.  C.  that  positive  commands,  tell  us 
plainiy  our  duty,  and  the  way  in  which  that  du- 
ty is  to  be  discharged:  but  the   precepts  only   rao- 

*  The  above  view  proves,  that  Mr.  C.  had  at 
least  heard  of  the  terms  moral  and  mo^^al  position. 
It  is  a  kind  of  miserable  mixture  of  truth  and  error. 
It  is  said  that  Mahomed  formed  tne  Alcoran  from 
the  Jewish,  Christian,  and  Pagan  systems;  therefore 
it  had  some  truth  in  it. 

R  2 


186  BAPTISM. 

ral,  tell  us  in  some  kind  of  general  terms  the  duty, 
but  let  each  subject  discharge  it  as  he  pleases. 
Togive  us  an  example  of  the  way  in  which  he  un- 
derstands the  subject,  he  quotes  a  passage;  Phil. 
4.  8.  'Finally,  brethren,  vvhatsover  things  are 
lionest,  whatsoever  things  are  just,  whatsoever 
things  are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are  lovely, 
v.fhatsoever  things  are  of  good  report,  if  there  be  any 
virtue,  if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on  these  things.' 

Mr.  C.  certainly,  and  not  the  scriptures,  is  the 
first  to  whom  we  stand  indebted  for  this  new  reve- 
lation of  mora]  and  positive  precepts  until  his  time, 
the  christian  world  have  been  in  the  dark  on  the 
subject;  but,  like  evtry  other  new  theory,  we  can- 
not adopt  it  at  once;  and  thii^,  for  the  following 
reasons. 

Ist.  The  will  of  God  revealed,  is  the  rule  of  the 
subject's  duty,  and  it  matters  not  to  us,  how  that  is 
made  Jinown  in  the  sciiptures  of  truth,  whither  by 
vision,  dreams,  Balaam,  Isaiah  or  the  apostles.  It 
IS  our  duty  to  obey.  ' 

2nd.  Itr^  matters  not  whether  in  express  revela- 
tion, or  by  plain  letters,  our  particular  duly  is 
made  known.  Mr  C.  would,  indeed,  have  a  very 
large  bible  that  must  expressly  tell  every  indivi- 
dual his  or  her  duty,  in  particular;  for  as  the  same 
may  not  be  learned  by  inference,  when  it  is  re- 
quired by  the  positive  moral  law,  the  command 
must  contain  the  name  and  sirname  of  the  indivi-. 
dual,  upon  whom  the  duty  is  enjoined.  If  indeed 
God  appoints  a  positive  institution  for  the  benefit 
of  the  church,  I  may  easily  and  by  a  natural  pro- 
cess of  reasoning  learn  that  the  same  is  my  duty; 
but  this  I  find  by  exercising  my  reason  upon  the 
command,  yet  this  I  must  not  do,  if  I  adopt  Mr.  C*5 
system;  for  thereby,  I  will  destroy  all  positive  in- 


BAPTISM.  187 

stitutions.  They,  according  to  his  system,  maybe 
moral,  but  not  positive  when  found  by  any  pro- 
cess of  reasoriing.  e.  g.  A  person  applies  to  Mr. 
C.  for  baptism;  he  makes  a  full  profession  of  his 
faith;  Mr.  C.  asks  the  scriptures  for  his  duty;  he 
finds  examples  of  adults  being  baptized,  of  differ- 
ent ages;  he  finds  Christ  giving  a  command  to  min- 
isters to  go  and  baptize;  but,  from  the  begining  of 
Genesis  to  the  last  of  the  book  of  the  Revelation, 
he  finds  no  such  passage,  as  according  to  his 
system,  he  now  needs.  These  must  be  the 
words  of  the  passage.  'Alexander  Cambell,  V.  D. 
M.  go  take  this  man  (naming  him)  and  plunge  him 
into  Buffaloe,  Chartiers  or  Short  Creek,'  (as  con- 
veniencj  may  serve,  for,  to  make  the  passage 
express,  it  must  contain  the  name  of  the  creek.) — 
Without  much  inference  Mr.  C.  can  now  go  to 
work.  But  the  misfortune  is  there  is  no  such  pas- 
sage, and  of  course,  on  his  scheme  tliere  cannot; 
now  be  any  positive  institution.  They  must  be 
founded  upon  some  'express  precept  of  the  Dei- 
ty.' 

3rd.  It  is  an  unfair  division  of  the  moral  law; 
because  it  supposes,  that,  upon  some  of  its  pre- 
cepts, you  may  exercise  your  reason,  in  order  to 
find  your  duty;  and  another  class  of  them,  upon 
which  reason  must  not  be  exercised,  without  de- 
stroying the  institution  altogether.  1  fear  this  di- 
Tision  will  hardly  be  admitted  by  readers  of  com- 
mon sense;  because  they  will  immediately  reply, 
that  one  class  of  moral  precepts  were  made  for 
leasonable  men,  and  another  class  for  people  with- 
out reason. 

Lastly,  I  object  to  Mr.  C's.  system  of  the  moral 
law,  for  another  very  important  reason.  It  has  no 
foundation  in  scripture.    He  cannot  erenprpve 


188  BAPTISM. 

it  by  inference;  for  then  we  should  have  admitted 
it. 

We  are  now  constrained  to  adhere  to  the  old  sys- 
tem of  morals;  which  we  shall  briefly  state,  in  an- 
swer to  one  question.  'What  is  the  duty  which 
'God  reqiiireth  of  mar»?  The  duty  which  God 
'requireth  of  man  i^  obedience  to  his  revealed 
will?  short,  cat,  quest.  39.  This  is  intended  to 
comprehend  the  whole  duty  of  man.  If  the  will 
of  God,  even  by  the  most  diligent  search  can  be 
found,  our  duty  of  course  follows. 

If  this  doctrine  be  not  true,  then  the  following 
things  must  be  true. 

1st.  That  reason,  in  some  sense,  is  a  law:  that 
is,  in  those  ca<es  were  the  divine  law,  fails  in  clear 
revelation,  D.  Hume  atid  T.  Pain,  and  I  wns  go- 
ing to  say  M — wouid  agree  with  this,  because  it 
strikes  at  the  tirs*  root  of  divine  revelation. 

2ad.  There  must  be  as  many  different  laws  as 
there  are  subjects  of  law;  becaui^e  two  individuals 
never  reason  in  the  same  precise  way;  and  with  all 
that  variety  of  reasorana:,  the  conduct  ol  each, 
will  be  morally  right,  although  very  distinct,  and 
in  many  cases,  directly  opposite. 

3rd.  That  in  order  to  obtain  a  knowledge  of  the 
moral  law,  difficult  search  must  be  made  in  order 
to  discover  our  duty;  but  no  such  search  is  ne- 
cessary, where  we  enquire  for  our  duty,  as  requir- 
ed by  laws  ptsUively  moral. 

Now  because  we  refuse  the  doctrines  contain- 
ed in  these  assertions,  and  yet  admit  the  rruth  of 
the  a5>;ertion,  that  there  is  a  distincticii  between 
precepts,  naturally  moral,  and  those  po-itivt-ly  so; 
we  ask  for  the  distinction.  I  answ  r,  that  those 
conlimands  which  are  founded  solely  upon  the  will 
of  God,  are  positive;  and  those  whiclij  in  tlitir  iia- 


BAPTISM.  189 

ture,  are  unchangeable,  &  being  founded  upon  the 
divine  nature  are  naturally  moral.  To  the  first 
class  belonged,  I  grant,  the  prohibition  to  eat  of 
the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  in  the  ce- 
rimonial  and  judicial  laws;  to  this  same  class  al- 
so belong  the  commands  of  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper,  while  to  the  latter  belong  the  ten 
commandments,  with  the  exception  of  a  part  of 
the  fourth  commandment,  which  respects  the 
precise  portion  of  time  to  be  devoted  to  the  Lord; 
together  with  all  those  commands  throughout  the 
scriptures,  vrhich  are  in  their  nature  unchange- 
able. 

By  inference  or  otherwise  our  duty  from  all 
these  commands  is  found;  they  all  require  perfect 
obedience,  which  we  have  neither  will  or  power 
to  render.  From  the  darkness  of  our  minds,  but 
not  from  any  defect  in  the  divine  law,  we  disagree 
respecting  our  duty;  even  in  our  practice,  we  cari- 
not  'see  eye  to  eye.''  Mr.  C.  is  perhaps  the  first 
christian  writer  who  has  charged  these  defects  on 
the  law  ol  God. 

The  way  by  which  we  learn  the  divine  mind,  is 
by  inference,  &c.  but  nothing  on  this  subject  is  to 
be  decided,  by  the  commands  being  positively,  or 
naturally  moral;  in  either,  with  the  same  ease  or 
difficulty  we  learn  our  duty.  Sometimes  our  duty 
is  mentioned  in  general  terms,  as  in  Phil.  4.  8. 
The  passage  quoted  by  Mr.  C.  or  in  Micah,  6.  8 
'He  hath  shewed  thee  O  man  what  is  good;  and 
what  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do 
justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy 
God.'  But  the  same  duties,  are  in  other  parts 
particularly  mentioned;  and  this  in  language,  gen- 
erally so  plain  that 'he  that  runs  may  read.' 

Upon  Mr.  C's.  view  of  the  subject,  the  greatest 


190  BAPTrSM. 

part  of  practical  duties  must  cease  to  be.  Where 
is  the  express  warrant  for  the  change  of  the  sa- 
bsth?  This  belongs  to  tlie  positive  part  of  the 
fourth  commandment.  If  Mr.  C.  will  adhere  te 
the  positive  injunctions  on  this  subject,  he  must 
either  turn  Jew,  or  seven  d;iy  baptist;  where  is 
ihe  express  »varrant  for  family  worship?  Not  in 
the  .'^cnptures,  nay,  even  secret  prayer  fares  the 
same  fate;  unless  a  man  is  wealthy  enough  to 
own  a  clo-et;  for,  in  the  express  warrant  requir- 
ing this  subject,  ihey  were  told  to  enter  into  a  clos- 
et. Preaching,  and  almost  every  duty  by  Mr. 
C's.  sxceeping  system,  is  annihilated.  In  this  he 
will  be  contadicted  by  the  experience  of  ail  God's 
people;  loose  and  profane  gospel  hearers,  will  be- 
come his  disciples,  without  undergoing  any 
change.     It  is  nature's  system  he  teaches. 

Moral  precepts  would  receive  no  force  had  the 
revelation  even  been  made  on  Mr.  C's  plan.  The 
commandment  given  in  Math.  7.  12.  'Therefore 
all  things,  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should 
do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.'  This  is  a  re- 
relation,  as  expressly  prohibiting  slavery,  as  if  the 
command  had  run  in  these  express  words,  no  man 
or  woman  (naming  them),  shall  make  irafic  of  his 
fellow  men. 

H.  ving  thus  premised  a  few  things,  and  having 
called  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  Mr.  C's.  ab- 
surd theory,  upon  which  he  builds  his  system; 
we  shaU  prosecuted  the  subject  in  debate 

That  baptism,  is  itself,  literally  required, 
and  expressly  commanded,  is  not  denied  by  Mr. 
C.  From  example,  command,  and  the  nature  of 
the  duty,  we  learn  the  persons  to  be  b^iptised. 
Bat,  because  he  cannot  find  these  express  words 
thou  shall  baptize  wfants;  he  refuses  to  do  it,  and 


BAPTISM.  191 

although  even  this  rt'velt>.tion  had  been  made,  he 
would  have  been  under  the  necessity  of  reasoning 
from  a  general  command,  to  a  particular  duty, 
and  this,  according  to  his  theory,  would  not  have 
done.  'In  positive  institutions  we  are  not  autho- 
'rized  to  reason  what  we  should  do,'  Nay,  the 
vrry  age  of  the  children  must  be  mentioned. 
They  must  be  under  ten  or  fifteen  years.  So  from 
the  rea-^ontng  before,  a  slave  holder  justifirs  the 
nefarious  practice  of  slavery,  because,  they  can 
find  no  express  warrant  against  it,  seven  day  bap- 
tists can  find  no  express  warrant  fur  t}ie  change 
of  the  sabbath;  and  even  some  refuse  to  read  any 
other  book  than  the  Bible,  because  we  are  com- 
manded to  search  the  scriptures,  but  not  command- 
ed to  search  any  other  book.  I  suppose  the  cliurch 
of  Corinth,  was  at  as  great  a  loss  to  find  the  prop- 
er manner  of  celebrating  the  sacr?.mf  nt  of  the 
Lord's  supper,  as  Mr.  C.  is  to  find  the  proper  sub- 
jects and  mode  ot  baptism;  and  therefore,  encou- 
raged drunkenness  and  gluttony,  in  this  sacred 
feast.  Christ  corrected  this  mistake  by  Paul,  not  by 
any  new  revelation,  but  by  repeating  the  revela- 
tion made  at  the  institution. 

We  have,  Mr.  C.  making  an  assertion  as  if  it 
had  been  asserted  by  a  Pedo-Baptist,  'a  positive 
institution  as  founded  wholy  upon  nason.'  I  reply, 
that  no  Pedo-Baptist  will  say  so;  we  say  that  no 
duty  whatever  is  founded  upon  reason.  The  di- 
vine law  stands  ready  to  condemn  or  approbate 
every  act  performed  by  man.  Reason,  in  no  case, 
is  a  bar  at  which  human  actions  will  be  tried.  It 
may  be  laid  down  as  a  general  assertion  in  no 
case  to  be  contradicted;  that  every  ordinance, 
nay,  every  justifiable  act,  is  founded  solely  upon 
tl»€  divine  law,  vs^hether  the  true  meaning  of  the 


19^  BAPTISM. 

law  is  to  be  discovered,  by  its  express  letter,  by 
inference,  or  example. 

Before  I  further  attend  to  his  objections,  1  would 
observe,  that  is  an  evident  trait  in  Mr.  C's  cha- 
racter as  a  disputant,  that  those  ^vho  were  not 
present  at  the  public  debate,  should  know;  tliis 
was  evident  in  the  debate,  arid  is  manifest  in  his 
book:  that  wherever  he  received  an  agument 
for  which  he  had  no  reply  at  hand,  he  attempted 
to  look  the  argument  out  of  countenance.  He 
would  treat  it  with  the  greatest  possible  contempt; 
and  upon  that  occasion  vociferate  and  declaim  un- 
usually. He  would  give  an  excellent  character 
to  his  own  argument,  thereby  attempting  to  pass 
it,  with  those  who  had  implicit  faith  in  all  he  said, 
the  argument  pa?sed  decently,  but  with  those  who 
possessed  sense,  it  was  treated  with  contempt. 

We  have  a  striking  example  of  this  in  his  rea- 
roning  on  positive  institutions.  It  had  been  ob- 
served by  Pedo-Baptist  writers,  that  tliere  was  no 
express  warrant  for  female  communion,  and  the 
arguments  offered  by  Mr.  Edwards  and  others,  on 
this  subject,  never  yet  have  received  a  reply.  Mr. 
C.  muf^t  now  attempt  it.  Now  reader  attend  to 
his  strong  and  convincing  reply.  'As  to  Lis  se- 
'cond  query  concerning  female  communion,  I 
'  have  to  observe,  that  although  sundry  Pedo* 
'  Baptists  have  made  a  salvo,  to  soothe  their  minds 

*  in  this   apparent  difficulty;  it  is  a  poor  and  pitr- 

•  ful  come  off.  It  is  the  most  puerile  and  childish 
'  retort,  that  I  ever  heard  usfcd  by  adults,  that  had 
'any  knowledge  of  words  and  things.'  P.  70.  71.* 

*This  argument  or  rather  mede  of  reply,  for  I 
surpose  Mr.  C.  intends  it  for  both,  is  a  coniplete 
tanipheUsin.    It    was  evident  to    an  enlightened 


BAPTlSlil  19» 

Mr.  C.  would  now  have  dropped  the  subject  with 
this  lublc  r-  p!y.  but  son  ethirig  mu-t  be  taid,    was 

*  the  Lord's  supper,  nstituied  or  appointed  to  mef, 
'or   women,' as    such?     Was   it  not  aprioii  ted  to 

*  (lie  di^<ciples  of  Christ?  he  gave  il  to  t!ie  disc.-^ 
'  pies  Sfjiria:  partake  ye  all  of  it.'  The  truth  of 
the  doctrii  e,  that  won. en  should  be  r.dmitted  to 
a  comniuniin  table,  no  person  dispulfs.  In  this 
we  agree  with  Mr.  C.  But  tf  e  question  is,  what 
is  his  rxpress  warrant?     Thou  shalt  admit  W(  men 

{'  aming  thfm)  to  a   communion    table?  or  let   a     ' 
w^oman  so  examin«'  herself  ar  d  -^o  let  I  er  eat.    No, 
thet-e  are  not  to  be  found.    He   would  ha%'e  pfe-i 
fer<'d  ^uch  passages. 

But  Christ  gave  the  dements  to  his  disc'ples;  of 
the  bread  he  said:  Est  ye  all  of  it;  of  the  wi;  e 
drink  ye  all  of  it.'  This  is  true,  hut  were  tl  ere 
ai  y  women  among  the  disciples?  answer  No. 
Then  how  is  the  warrant  of  female  communion 
found  here?  Mr.  C.  has  an  answer  at  h&nd:  thirty 
or  forty  years  nfter  tie  institution  of  the  sufiper,  a 
woman  is  called  a  diciple.  lam  n(  u  p  -  par*  d 
to  mfer  with  him  that  a  woman,  may  be  a  Itnitted 
to  the  sacrnmert  of  the  supper.  Should  I  found 
my  argument  for  the  communion  of  men.  upon 
the  fact  to  wl  ich  Mr.  C.  alludes,  I  can  est.  bl  h  it 
by  easy  inference;  but  the  circumstatice  of  n  en 
being  the  only  comniunicants  at  tl  at  time,  makes 
the  infeience  for  the  admission  of  women  lay  more 

audience,  and  must  be  so  now  to  tie  reader,  that  '^ 
he  could  not  ro  any  thing  with  the  reply  on  this    - 
subject.     Mr.  C.  is  well   acquainttd  with   'he   ig- 
T»ori  nee    of  this  day,  and   intends  to  profit  bv  ^t; 
liad   he  consulted  his  f-uty,  he  would  rather  If  led 
to  have  eulighlened  them. 


remote.     We  shall  however    attempt    to    And   it 

Every  disciple  of  Christ,  may  be  admitted  to  a 
communion  table. 

But  women  are  called  disciples  of  Christ:  there- 
fore women  may  be  admitted  to  a  communion 
table. 

Mr.  C.  thinks- this  inference  so  easy,  that  at  least 
we  should  take  it  for  an  express  warrant.  But 
in  reviewing  the  sylogism,  I  find  it  not  true.  I 
find  a  dt'ftct  in  the  first  term,  it  is  too  general,  I 
shall  therefore  amend  it. 

Every  disciple  of  Christ  may  not  be  adirsiftedto 
a  communion  table,  because  they  may  be  overta. 
ken  in  a  fault,  and  for  some  time,  be  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  sin,  and  as  Miriam  was,  excluded  for 
a  season  from  the  visible  communion  of  the 
cliurch. 

But  wo;.^ennre  disciples  of  Christ:  therefore  wo- 
men may  be  excluded  from  fhe  communion  of  the 
church. 

This  last  syllogism  J  know,  is  not  very  good. 
But  it  proves  this,  that  it  takes  some  reasoning  to 
fi'id  a  just  inference:  it  is  not  a  truth,  that  because 
they  are  disciples  of  Christ,  that,  tlu-refore,  they 
have  always  a  right  to  communion.  It  takes  some 
reasoning  to  find,  that  they  are  of  that  kind  of  disci- 
.p'es,thnt  should  be  admitted  to  a  communion  table. 
Thus  by  reasoning  and  inference,  I  grant  that  it 
may  be  proved,  that  women  have  a  right  to  be 
admitted  to  the  full  communion  of  the  church. 

Mr.  C.  saw  what  Mr.  Edwards  had  done  with 
Mr.  Bonthe's  express  warrants,  and  thought  he 
should  escape  by  inventing  a  new  example,  and 
thus  be  prepared  for  a  new  conclusion.  But  it  is 
now  found  that  his  premise  Avill  not  necessarily. 
admit  of  his  conclusion.    A  person  in  delerium  mixy 


BAPTISM.  i95 

be  a  disciple  of  CHrist;ar>d  this,  in  addition  to  the 
abote,  can  shew  the  fallitcy  of  his  jiroumtnt,  that, 
hficause  a  person  is  a  di-ciple  of  Clrist,ihat  there- 
fore they  must  be  admitted  to  a  comnmnion  table. 
Mr.  C.  will  have  to  txen  his  irivtntive  powers 
once  nitre,  at  d  agrain  declaim  at  some  length,  be- 
fore he  will  produce  an  express  warrant  for  fe- 
male communion. 

Mr.  C.  gfivfis  us  a  riew  comment  upon  nets  2.  23. 
'For  the  |:iromi.*eis  unto  you  and  to  yt^ur  children, 
and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  fven  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  sl-all  call.'  Tlie  promise  he  sup- 
posps  to  whicl  Pe^er  re'er«,  is  cited  from  ,1'  el  v. 
17,  18, 19  20.  P.ge  56.  57,  ni  d  ccording  to  his 
usual  manni  r  dfclarf-s  tl  at  I  e  'that  saitli  he  cua- 
'■  not  see  it  is  bin  d  ii  deed,'  page  5G. 

Ky  the  things  promised  ir.  this  verse,  quoted  by 
P  ter,  Mr.  C  must  either  understand  the  exlrnor- 
(liDiiry  m{'.nifer.tation  of  the  spui',as  manife-ted  on 
Ih*  day  ol  Petiticost,  or  the  special  f  x(  rcise  of 
li  e  si^me  spirit,  in  tl  e  wt  tk  of  yrace.  But  it  is  im- 
pohsible  that  it  cat'  be  tl  e  f  rn!er;for  the  promise 
t*  winch  Peter  refers,  was  nut  only  addressed  to 
lh(  s(  present  on  that  occasion,  but  to  their  chil- 
dren; to  thdBc  who  wer»  yet  leathen,  or  oh'  rn, 
'air  oti.'  But  few  of  the  children,  or  tho^e  q/i-.r  offy 
ever  witnessed  these  mir.  culou>  out-pouri  gs  of 
the  ^pirt;  and.  of  course,  could  not  be  the  sub- 
jects if  lhl^  part  cular  pn  njise.  But  ti;e  propiie- 
c}  ofJfelh;.d  a-  pr- per  acc<>n.pli?hm<nt  on  the 
day  ol  Petiiicost;  and  theretore.  ttiC  promise  mm-, 
ticned  by  Peter,  could  not,  as  Mr  C.  supposes,  re- 
fer to  the  prophecy  6t  Joel. 

Mr.  C.  inanaj.es  hi^coIT^ref  t  on  Peters  wcrds 
as  he  dees  hjs  otht  r  opponenis;  le  -a).^  P(  ler-i  ad 
aieferciice  to  the   ji^ropbecV  made   by  J^ei;  aiid 


1%  BAPTISM. 

t'e  rea?;on  hfi  gives  must  be  sufficient.  This  is 
his  strong  arsrum<^nt — he  that  cannot  sce  it,  is 
BLIND  iNDEf.D.  T  lis ,  hovvcver,  Is  his  usual  mode 
oF •speech,  when  he  either  does  not  understand  a 
point,  or  does  not  believe  his  own  assertion. 

Mr.  C.  next  entertain-?  you,  with  an  attempted 
ref'ifation,  of  an  ariruaif^nt  drnwn  in  favoF  of  in- 
fmt  baptism,  from  thf  eircum=?tances  of  a  ntmib-^r 
of  households  beinar  bapfizf^d.  Paije  72,  73.  Af- 
t'  r  takin?  a  view  of  the  household  of  Cornelius, 
r  enfioned  in  the  10  h  chap,  of  Acts,  he  conchidi^sj 
'  The  imasjinary  infints  of  the  housetiojd  of  Cor- 
'  nelius  when  the  lOf'i  chap4;'r  of  the  Acts  is  read, 
'  come  out  distinguished  believer*  and  notable 
'  christians.'  The  ncuteness  of  Mr.  C's  genius 
has  made  some  discoveries  on  this  chapter  wl;icli 
I'.o  oiher  pcr-'on  can  s<  e.  We  cannot  perceive  a- 
ny  thinjf  in  the  chapter  which  excludes  the  possi- 
bili'v  of  infnnr  nenbers  b?ing  in  it.  Should  I 
make  this  public  d.claration  respecting  a  family, 
that  thry  weie  religion-;  hnd  instructive  parents; 
a  household  that  feared  God;  would  any  o'-e  clial- 
lange  me  for  speaking  improperly,  although  some 
of  them  were  infants,  and  some  sufficiently  growa 
to  yield  the  fruits  of  religious  education?  But 
Luke  asserts  no  more  respecting  the  houj^ehold  of 
Cornelius,  Acts  10,  2.  'A  devout  man  and  onfc 
that  feared  God,  with  all  his  house;*^  and  finally 
that    they  were  baptized. 

2nd.  Household,  was  the  household  of  Lydia, 
'  The  40th  verse  ^jrohibits  the  supposition    of  in- 

*  fants,  for  we  are  told  that  Paul,  at   her  request, 

*  after  he  was  discharged  from  prison,  visited   hrr 

*  family;  and  that   'when    they   had  entered   the 
'  house  of  Lydia  &  had  seen  the  brethren,  and  com- 

*  forted  them,  they  departed.'     So  that  thege  sup- 


BAPIISM,  ,idf 

^^poped  that  infants  were  brethren  in  the  faith, 
*  capabl.e  of  receiving  comfort  from  Ihe  words  of 
'  (h«'  apoi^tle.' 

Reader,  attend  to  this  new  ppecies  of  household, 
Ii  was  composed  of  the  neighbors  who  had  railed 
to  visit  hep  family,  ai  d  hear  Paul  preach.  T  ese 
were  all  baptized.  Paul  and  Silas,  who  also  had 
called  with  her,  were  thereby  constituted  a  part  of 
her  household;  and  of  course,  with  the  rest  were 
baptized.  It  is  not  possible  that  any  person  can 
believe  Mr.  C's  doctrite.  That  if  a  nymher  of 
neighbours,  either  accidentally  or  b\  design,  hap-, 
pr ned  to  meet  in  ihe  house  of  a  neigV  bor,  that  they 
thereby  constituted  one  household.  But  his  idea  is 
still  more  ridiculous,  because  a  conjrregation, 
it  appears,  had  c<l]ected  at  the  house  of  Lydia;  al- 
thou^'hthey  had  no  concern  in  her  secular  affairs, 
yet  from  this  simple  circumstance,  accordma:  to 
Mr.  C.  they  were  the  members  of  her  household, 
and  i>.s  such,  obtained  baptism.  Any  thing,  Mr.  C. 
r;itl  er  than  the  baptism  of  I.nfants. 

Whether  Ljdia  was  a  widow,  or  had  a  living 
hu,eband.  I  cannot  tell;  but  I  am  certain  she  had  a 
family.  She  not  only  had  a' house,  but  also  a 
household;^ this  family ,whethprbHbes  or  not,  were 
baptized.  Mr.  C.  has  found,  (F  •.uppose  from  Mr. 
Robison)  that  she  was  a  traveilina^  merchant;  be« 
cau~e  it  is  said  she  was  of  the  city  of  Thyatyra; 
and  from  this  circumstance,  v^ouid  have  the  rea* 
der  to  believe  that  she  was  a  sina^le  lady,  that 
merely  called  at  Philippi  to  sell  a  car^'O  qt  trc-ods. 
He  indeed  ti.lks  so  familiarly  abotit  it,  that  the 
reader  .would  -uppose  I.e  vva^?  personally  "cquiint- 
cd  with  her.  But  she  had  a  hou'-e,  a  suitable  place 
of  entertainment.  Tliis  I  corie..:?  doiis  i'at  appear 
ojuch  like  a  Urav^Uinij  merclvaiit,*  She  bad  oiigj- 
S   2 


19§  BAPTISM, 

Dally,  I'ved  in  Thy?tyra.  She  now  residfd  in 
Pliilippi.  Mr.  C.  you  should  at  least  try  to  make  (he 
like-e^J  of  truth. 

The  next  exami^le  mentioned,  is  the  household 
of  th"  jaifor,  page  73.  After  Mr.  C.  r«'vipws  this 
subject,  he  concludes,  'So  that  the  suppo'-ed  in- 
'  fants  of  thi-;  hou  e  wer-^  c^pa!>le  of  h  »viii!j  a  ser- 
*  mon  preached  to  theai,  of  believinsf.'  &c.  But 
the  examination  of  the  premi<;es,  will,  perhaps  ren- 
der Mr.  Cs  conclusion  not  so  easy.  Let  us  now 
resd  the  passage.'  'A:;d  they  spake  irito  him  thfe 
•  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house. 
And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  tlie  night, 
and  washed  their  stripes  and  was  baptized,  he  and 
all  his  straitj^ht-way.  And  when  he  had  brought 
them  into  his  hous*^  he  sat  mi'at  before  them,  and 
rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all  his  house.*  Acts 
16.  To  whom  w;is  (he  word  here  spoken?  It  is 
to  the  jailor,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house;  in- 
cluding, perhaps,  servants  and  others.  Suppose 
thai  tb.ese  wr?e  adults,  as  Mr.  C.  suppose^.  Yet 
the>e  by  the  inspired  historian,  are  carefully  dis- 
'tinguishe.i  from  the  infants  and  other  members  of 
the  family.  Because,  when  bespeaks  ofbapti- 
t'zing,  it  is  the  jailor 'and  all  his.'  Mr.  C.  inten- 
tionally confounds  those  who  heard  tlie  word, 
with  those  that  were  baptized; but  Luke  does  not* 

Mr.  C.  supposes  that  they  were  all  triumphant 
believers  who  were  baptized  in  his  household.  Here, 
as  u"^ual,  Mr,  C.  takes  the  advantage  of  the  reader 
not  acquainted  with  the  original  text.  Because 
the  words  'rejoiced,  believing,'  are  in  (be  sin- 
gular number,  and  therefore  cannot  include  those 
to  whom  the  word  was  preached*.     He   rejoiced 

*'f  «ere    is  .  but   htiie  doubt,  but  Mr.  C.  kiicvy 


^     B4PTISM  198 

• 

w'fb  all  hishoiisp;  or  rejoiced  over  t^at  family,  he 
ha  <]!»•=!'  d-'flJcated  t»  t'e  L'-rd  bv  baptism.  Nei- 
th  T  the  jjy  of  t'le  fmiily  nor  yet'  the  joy  of 
of  er^  is  mentioupd.  T!<e  f!i:ni!y  had 
just  now  received  the  ordinance  of  baptism; 
vv-y  did  thev  not  join  with  their  father  in  this  joy? 
or  whv  does  the  inspired  historian,  mention  the 
j  >V  of  the  father  alone?  T^ie  answer  is  easy;  a 
great  share  of  the  fanriilv  were  children,  too  yon  s: 
to  have  an  un  ierstanding  of  the  seal,  they  h.id 
just  T' cived. 

Th*"  last  household  mentioned  by  Mr.  C.  is  the 
household  of  Stephanus.  ICor.  1.  16.  He  says 
that  'all  the  members  of  this  household,  were 
saints  of  the  first  magnitude;  because  they  addict- 
ed themselves  to  the  minislry  of  t!ie  saints.  Li- 
b'jralitv  is,  indeed,  J^n  excellent  character;  but  he- 
fore  Mr.  C.  I'  never  heard  that  it  constitutes  a 
person;  a  saint  of  the  first  magnitude.'  The 
truth,  however,  id,  that  tlie  apostle  ^ives  a  good 
character  of  this  family;  thev  were  l'b'>ral  in  en- 
tertaining saints.  But  Mr,  C.  ihink^.  that  no  fa-" 
'niily  could  be  said  to  be  liberiil,  who  had  infants; 
for  this  is  the  only  reason  he  )?ives,  why  they  could 
have  no  infant  members  in  the  family.  *They  mi- 
nistered to  the  saints.'  His  most  ignorant  rea- 
ders can  judije  of  the  force  of  this  argument. 

Notw'thstanding    all    Mr     C.  has  said,  the   ar- 


this  ftci.  This  circumstance  miglit  awaken  his 
few  disciples,  when  they  see  the  use  he  makes  of 
Greek.  This  i^,  however,  to  be  observed,  that  Mr. 
C.  always  speaks  with  the  most  confidence,  and 
exults  most  in  victory,  when  he  kuows  he  is 
wrong.  Tai3  may  d>  with  one  class  of  mankind, 
but  the  wise  will  scorn  it. 


300  BAPTISM. 

guTient  of  Pedo-B^ptist,  founded  upon  the  f;^ct8 
of  so  mniiy  households  b^'ins:  bap'ized,  remmns 
unimpaired.  Wiieri  this  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
grace  was  first  admiriistered,  uiidt  r  another  fornti, 
the  name-;  of  some  of  the  infants,  members  of  the 
household,  were  mentioned;  nay  at  eight  days  old 
this  seal  was  administered;  of  which  we  have  a 
particular  account  given,  when  this  posit've  in- 
stitution was  first  mentioned;  Gen.  17.  27  As 
the  mode  was  the  almost  only  thinj  changed,  it 
appeared  no  longer  i  ecessary  to  mention  the  pre- 
ci'^e  age  of  the  ditferent  members  of  liouseholds 
admitted  by  thif?  'ieaU 

But  the  simple  and  natural  method  in  which 
we  find  the  baptism  of  households  stated,  form  a 
strong  argument  in  favor  i*f  the  system  of  Pedo^ 
Biptist.  Mr.  C.  desires  to  amend  the  texts  by 
inserting  the  adult  members;  this  would  end  the 
controver=:y;  but  a  reader  of  common  sense,  when 
he  finds  (he  word  household^  will  at  least  suppose 
it  probable,  there  were  infant  members  in  it.  The 
househuld  of  Abrahani  is  mentioned;  we  know  it 
had  infant  memi)ers;  yet  the  baptist  deny  that  any 
irif;,nts  belonged  to  the  households  ofLydia,  Ste- 
phat'Us,  &r,  for  this  strong  reason,  that  none  of 
them  are  mentioned. 

Next,  Mr.  C.  objects  to  the  interpretation  gi- 
ven by  Mr.  W.  of  Psal.  127.  Let  us  hear  M:.  C. 
'Now  what  a  perversion  of  a  plain  portion  of- 
'scripture,  to  attempt  to  shew,  from  these  words, 
'that  infants  are,  in  a  spiritual  sense,  theinheri- 
'  tance  of  the  Lord,  or  a  reward,  or  gifi,  presented 
*  to  him  by  their  parents  T  »is  is  just  the  rever-!e 
'  of  the  meaning  of  the  Ps.hn  '  11-  accordi.':g!y 
pre  er  ts  us  with  a  paraohrase,  hsi  we  <ho.ild 
njjsuuderjsland  the   pass,  ge,     -Lo,'  even  chiUren 


BAPTISM.  201 

'^  tliemseives,  which  are  born  by  or<!inary  prenfra- 
'  tion,  are  an  heritage  or  icift  of  the  Lord  to  pa- 
'  rents,  andthe  truit  of  the  womb  is  las  reward  to 
tlif.m.'  P.  74.  But  we  ask  to  wiiom  is  the  address 
niide?  We  answer,*  to  parent*;  and  tho-se  behev- 
ers,  having  a  standing  in  the  covenant  of  grace; 
and  it  is  to  them,  an  intimation,  that  tley.inay  m- 
Joy  themselves  ♦vithout'inquielude.  They  may 
c>»nsidpr  themselves  df^livert^d  from  all  the  Hnxi'!- 
tie«!  and  trowblfs  of  the  world,  manifested  by  their 
rising  early  and  sittiiig  no  late  from  rest;  feeding 
on  the  bie;id  of  sorrriw,  &.c.  Because  you  are 
tiiken  into  a  relation  to  Gid,  by  which  you  have 
peace  with  G  ^d  secured,  and  fin  illy,  a  conquest 
over  the  world.  As  the  persons  addressed  ^re 
believer-?,  so  the  heritage  of  which  the  Psdinist 
speaks,  is  believer's  children.  These  God  de- 
clares to  be  ills  heritage;  and  vvhile  they  are  only 
lent  to  paients,  the  right  of  the  Head  of  the 
Church  IS  not  (hereby  relinquished.  All  we  ask 
is,  that  this  heritage  should  be  sealed  to  the  Lord, 
by  baptism. 

Mr.  W.  did,  in  the  public  di-^pute,  and  does  yet^ 
contend,  that  the  passage  in  Psal.  127,  does  dt^- 
dare,  that  infants  may  he  constituted  members  of 
the  visible  church,  by  declaring,  thrnt  the  children 
of  believers  are  the 'heritage  of  the  Lord.'  This 
is  a  title  in  scripture  given  to  the  church,  Joel  2. 
17,  'Spare  Ihy  peojile  O  Lord,  and  give  not  thy 
heritage  to  reproach.'  The  church  is  an  herifai^'e 
which  Christ  'purchased  of  old.'  It  will  indeed 
take  the  ingenuity  of  Mr.  C.  to  prove  that  the  ex- 
pression in  Psal.  127,  must  mean  something  dif- 
ferent from  tijat  which  it  was,  in  every  other  part 
of  scripture. 

The  next  argument  he  attempts  to  rt fute,  ip 


^0:^  BAPTISM. 

drawn  from  Malt.  28.  19.  'Go  ye  therefore  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  thf  m  in  the  name  of 
the  Fnfher  arid  of  the  S  'n,and  ofthe  Holj  Ghost.* 
P.  151.  Mr.  C.  afttT  prcifoundly  trying  his  Greek 
skill,  Sijccpeds  in  proving  ttiat  V  e  word  them, 
d"es  not  relate  to  nntinn-;  but  only  to  those  partg. 
of  nations,  that  are  discipled.  This,  indeed,  may- 
serve  him  for  an  opportunity  of  di.-playing himself: 
because  no  person  ever  denied  that  which  he  has 
proven;  and  therefore,  hix  Gr'ci-^n  labor  i.^  lost. 
N'>  person  ever  supposoii  that  Chri'-t's  injunction 
required  the  baptism  of  every  p»=Tson,  prophane 
or  sober.  But  this  iiift-rence  will  not  be  denied, 
even  by  tlie  B  :ptists,  that  it  is  tht>  duty  of  G')sp<.l. 
ministers  to  go  and  preach  the  Go-jpcl  to  diifi:rent 
nations,  arid  give  such  as  receive  it  the  s'^al-j  of' 
the  covenant  of  urace,  Yt-t  we  observe  that 
somotliins;  more  is  fou  d  in  this  expression  of 
Christ.  From  ti.e  irjunction  of  Christ  in  .M.itt» 
28.  19.  tiie  tollowing  things  are    evident. 

lit  That  an  adu  t  should  be  t  ught  by  the 
preaciiing  of  the  everlasting  Gos})el,  before  he  b^: 
biptiz«^rd. 

2  d.  That  it  wa^  the  duty  of  all  the  nations  to 
\vhom  the  apostlt^s  came,  to  receive  the  word  of 
life  to  them  prfe:chrd,  and  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism to  them  j^res'-nM'd 

Old.  Th.it  every  ineaiber  constituting  the  na- 
tion, whet'  er  m  de  or  female,  bond  or  free,  young 
or  old,  should  profit,  bv  the  admiidstra'ioii  of' 
word  and  saeranient.  It  will  be  granted,  thai 
the  parents  wf-re  not  the  otdy  persons  hound  lo 
receive  these;  but  their  (.-hildreii  also.  The  pan 
n  nts  being  once  instructed  and  initiated. in  t  le^ 
mysteries  of  grace,  w- r  qualitied  and  dispo  ed. 
t(i    instruct    their     children;    who,    like     olive 


BAPTISM.  gOS 

plants,  might  be  set  around  their  GoepeT  table,  aid 
reap  the  frjiit  of  all  the  blesniiigs  iheir  paientB 
possessf^d. 

4(h.  That  a!l who  w^re  in  the  nation,  and  ca- 
pat)le  of  being:  taught,  should  be  instructed.  And 
otrain,  all  who  wtre  capable  of  being  .baptizd 
shfiuld  r»:CPive  this  ordinance.  But  as  receiving 
instruction,  supposes  the  activity  of  tie  suhjrct  m- 
slructfd;  so  none  but  tho-^e  capable  of  under- 
standing could  receive  instruction.  But  iri  tlie 
receiving  of  tiie  sacrament  of  bapfi-ni,  no  activity 
was  necessary;  then  the  infant  menibi  rs  of  the 
nation  could  be  the  proper  subjects  of  it.  Tlie 
fit  subject^  of  baptism  U(  re  thvv  more  numerous, 
than  the  fit  subjects  addressed  in  the  mitiistry;  be- 
cause baptism  included  adults  and  infant.-.  But 
as  Mr.  C.  iri  fond  of  syllogisms,  he  shall  li&ve  it  in 
that  form. 

If  infants  are  the  members  of  a  nation,  ihry 
were  included  in  the  positive  command  of  Christ, 
Malt.  28.  10. 

But  the  former  is  true,  and  therefore  the  latter. 

Our  first  assertion  will  not  be  denied.  The  se- 
cond I  think  is  a  natural  ct)n«equei  ce.  Mr.  C, 
thinks  not.  Why?  because  the  words  might  be 
'rendered  go  ye  therefore  into  all  the  world  and  dis- 
jfciple  all  naiiohs;  and  because  infants  cannot  be 
discipled  they  niust  not  be  baptized.  But  I  ob- 
serve, that  Mr.  C's.  inference  is  not  true.  Read 
Math.  10.  42.  'And  whosoever  shall  give  to 
dririk,  unto  one  of  these  little  ones,  a  cup  of  cold 
water  g)  the  name  of  a  disciple,  verily  I  say  unto 
you,  he  shall  in  no  wise  loose  his  reward.''  There, 
*a  little  one,  a  babe^  is  called  a  disciple.  But  a  cer- 
tain Dr.  Lathrop,  who  happened  to  quote,  for  some 
purpose,  Matt.  18.  5,  6.  Mr.  C.  to  the  surprise  of 


804  BAPTISM. 

the  Doctor,  fnund  the  w-  rds  little  one  in  v.  &, 
Were  to  be.  Ui.dersstood  ot  heliever>-;  and  tlicn 
he  :bu«?es  ti  e  D  ctor  for  d  rv  g  to  think  that  the 
words  to/e  wic  could  mean  a  b  b' .  Tl  e  amount  of 
Mf.  C's.  reasoning  i,  th;^t  the  word-^  little  one 
were  taken  in  a  fijurufVe  sei  se  iii  Matili.  18.  6; 
Th.-r^fore,  this  must  be  their  signification  iii  every 
Oti^er  scripture  passage. 

Mr.  C  admits  that  infants  may,  in  irifancy,  re- 
ceive a  seal  of  civil  citizenship,  even  at  ei^ht  days 
old:  althougli  they  are  both  iiriconscious  of  the 
sign  and  of  the  tlvlns?  signified.  Grunting  circum- 
cision to  be,  what  Mr.  C.  supposes,  a  national  sign, 
a  .seal  of  t!ie  earthly  Canajin,  yet  it  will  not  be 
denied  that  it  was  an  instructive  seal.  They  must, 
according  to  him,  have  by  it,  been  taught  their  na- 
tional character,  their  civil  rights  and  priviledges, 
their  security  for  posse,s.*-ing  their  land,  aid  final- 
ly, the  source  from  wliich  all  fi  iwed.  Why,  Mr. 
C  do  all  tfiis  to  male  infant-,  when  they 
had  no  understanding  of  any  of  the  doctrines 
thught  m  this  rite?  But  this  was  in  a  civil  sense, 
disciphng  them;  and  as  we  have  before  shewn, 
has  all  the  Baptist  difficulties  attached  to  it,  that 
disciplinjr  them  in  a  religious  sense  could  have. 

'But  the  commission  of  Christ  says,  first  tench 
'and  then  Baptize.'  Page  152.  I  rej.ly  that  Christ, 
upon  issuing  tlie  commission,  mentioned  in  Mark 
•26.  16.  continues:  'He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tlz:  d  shidl  be  saved;  but  he  that  belii  vethnot,  shall 
hi'  damned  '  NdW,  updU  Mr  C-  plan.  I  argue. 
He  that  will  not  believe,  shfill  not  he  saved,  but  no 
infant  in  a  state  of  infancy Avill  btlieve;  th'ereAre, 
noinfant  dying  in  a  state  of  infancy  will  be  saved. 
Tin  truth  of  my  conclusion  drnwn  on  his  pi  in,  is 
evident;  becaufC faith  is  t^et  belore  sblvation;  and 


BAPTISM;  206 

of  course,  without  faith,  salvation  cannot  follow. 
N^r  will  any  person  either  believe  Mr.  C's  pre- 
mises, or  are  they  prepared  to  receive  his  con- 
el  u>'ion. 

Thus  from  scripture  and  reason,  I  think  the  im- 
partial rtader  w^ill  say,  that  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism  is  established.  Indeed  the  reader  will 
acknowledge,  that  little  more  was  necessary  afte? 
the  estabhshment  of  the  first  propositions.  Mr. 
C.  was  well  aware  of  this,  and  therelore  plead  with 
all  the  ingenuity  of  which  he  was  master,  with 
all  the  sternness  which  he  possessed,  and  with  all 
the  pity  which  a  /(tiling  combatant  could  claim, 
that  Mr.  W.  would  h  t  him  loose  from  the  old 
mmty  covenant,  and  from  the  doctrine  of  circum- 
cision, here  indeed  hift  cause  looked  miserable. 
Here  was  the  mortal  disease  of  his  system,  Mr.  C. 
felt  it.  When  the  discussion  of  this  was  done, 
little  more  was  necessary. 

In  order  that  his  system  should  live,  the  cove- 
nant of  the  Old  testament,  the  church  in  that  day, 
nay  even  the  gospel  of  that  age,  must  all  die,  they 
must  be  no  more;  and  the  language  of  a  Paine,  n 
Hume,  a  Bulingbroke  must  be  revived,  to  bring 
down  scorn  and  contempt,  upon  that  age,  that  Mr. 
C.  may  succeed  in  establishing  his  theory,  and 
lead  captive  unthoughtful,  and  ignorant  hear- 
ers.* 

*  Perhaps  the  degeneracy  of  a  part  of  our  com- 
munity cannot  be  better  discovered,  than  by  the 
support  which  a  periodical  work,  edited  by  Mr.  C. 
receive.  The  loose,  and  I  think,  the  prophane  man- 
ner with  which  he  treats  divine  revelation,  must 
be  shocking  to  the  Christian  ear.  See  his  obser- 
vations on  Prov.  37, 27,  and  on  Acts.  13,  33. 
T 


206  BAPTISM. 

Mr.  C.  concludes  his  discussion  of  the  doctrine 
of  infant  baptisnri,  in  a  way,  which  must  convince 
everj  attentive  reader:  that  the  ignorant  and  un- 
wary are  his   mark,  this  he  evidences. 

Nt.  By  his  address  to  the  Roman  Catholicks, 
page  183.  And  here  I  may  remark,  that  his  ad- 
dress to  the  Papists  and  others,  are  drawn  on  the 
plan  of  Mr.  Hume's  history  of  England  M- .  Hume 
because  he  was  an  infidel,  ^ives  no  discriminaling; 
view  of  the  different  churciies  in  Britain,  but  pla- 
ce- on  a  level,  the  churcfi  of  Rome,  and  the  re- 
formed churches.  So  Mr.  C  although  he  may 
not  very  well  understand  the  ditierent  points, 
ivhichdistintifuish  the  church  of  R  nne 'from  pro- 
testants,  yet  at  least  he  is  careless  about  if. 

It  is  true,  that  in  some  sense  tiie  Papists  are 
Pvdo-Baptists,  because  tliey  yet  in.  some  way, 
however  corrupt,  retain  a  few  of  the  apostolical 
practice-:  but  vvdi  t'  e  Baptists  dtuy  tlie  ijeing  of  a 
God,  because  tb.e  R  .man  Catholicks  believe  it? 
While  even  this  doctrine  is  corrupted  by  them,  in 
their  worshipping  of  saints  and  ange]-;'so  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  baptism  is  corrupted  by  papists,  by 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  other  super-^titious  rites 
attached  to  it  by  them:  yet  we  are  willing  toagree 
with  tbem,  so  tar  as  they  recognize  the  doctrine 
oftheBble. 

2nd  By  his  address*  to  the  Episcopalians,  his 
manner  of  writing  to  them,  has  rather  a  tei.dency  to 
confirm  them  in  every  view  he  opposes.  The  seri- 
ous members  of  that  church,  deplore  all  the  abuses 
of  this  doctrine,  and  while  to  Mr.  C.  it  is  ihe  sub- 
ject of  sp<irt,  yet  to  every  honest  Episcopalian,  it  is 
the  subject  of  lamentation.  It  is  usual  with  the 
prophane  r.jbbie,  to  take  peculiar  pleasure  in 
dwelling  upon  the  faults  of  profebsors  ol  the  Chris- 


'    BAPTISM.  2C7 

ii>nreH£ri on,  forming  t^en  by,  some  e-xcuse  for 
tl  en.  five*.  It  is  a  pity  to  fid  Mr  C.  copying 
t!  fir  roi  durt.  |ind  presenting  it  to  the  world  for 
tl  eir  in  mit-.tion.  Annonj?  thf  Episcopalians,  he 
onlv  sfrlectp  tho^e  mt  nb^  rs,  who  like  him?t!f,  have 
denied  their  own  baptism. 

3id,  Respecting  thot  wliich  Mr.  C.  says  of  ti;e 
Piesbvterian?,  I  shr-ll  mal<e  a  f '.  w  observut'ons. 
He  asserts  iri  poge  183      'For  if,  as  their   confes- 

*  sion  says,  the  sprinkhd  infant,  'js  engrafted  into 

*  Christ'  by  sprinkling,  then  its  sins  must  be  for- 
'  given  it;  then  it  must  be  pardoned  and  aicepitd.' 
It  IS  quite  sufficient  1  ere  lo  reply,  tlift  neither 
such  expressions,  nor  sentiments  are  found  in  a 
confession  of  faith,  belonging  to  any  branch  of 
the  Presbyteiian  church,  and  is  one  of  Mr.  C's 
usual  coinmer.ts.  Mr.  C.  has  soon  forgotten  his 
shorter  co.iechism,  when'  in  a  citation  made  from 
tiio.t  small  book,  he  can  be  contradicted  h\  every 
teliorl  boy.  'Ey  it,  the  cl  ureh  of  R  ne  serines 
'  all  b  rn  within  her  d<  minion,  the  cliurch  of  Em- 
'•  f,dar.d  and  the  church  if  Scotland,  secure,  by  this 
'  rite,  all  within  the  pale  of  their  respectivt-  jur:>J- 
'  dictions,  each  sect  has  its-own  views-.'  P;  gc  183, 
II  Mr.  C.  lieie  means  that  pr rents,  who  have  pre- 
sented their  children  to  God  in  bapli^m,  tcacii 
tlicir  respective  vitws  to  their  children,  then  I 
grant  tlat  children  generally  pos^sess  the  sentl- 
n>ents  of  their  pi.rt-nts;  but  I  have  never  yet  been 
able  to  discoAeV  a  dif^eience  in  this  rfspt  ct,  be^ 
tvvfenthe  children  ofB.*ptists  and  Ped .'  B:iplist?. 
Nay,  I  ha^e  known  some,  who  ut  dergo  all  the 
changes  of  their  ])arents,  and-\vith  them  leap- frcm 
creed  to  creed.  Will  Mr.  C.  advise  parents  to 
teach  tl'.eir  .children  views,  they  believe  not. 
Query,  how  does  he    teach    his    own    cijildren? 


20b  BAPTISM. 

But  why  attribute  that  to  baptism,  which  belongs 
to  the  manner  of  teaching  alone?  The  Roman 
Catholick  is  as  strongly  attached  to  his  particular 
views  as  Mr.  C^  is,  he  teaches  hi?  children  to  hate 
the  doctrine  of  the  protestantr^,  with  the  same  par- 
tiality, that  Mr.  C.  would  teach  his,  to  hate  the  doc- 
trine of  Pedo  Baptist?.  The  consequence  is,  that 
children  of  tlie  one,- become  Roman  Catholicks. 
and  the  children  of  the  other,  some  kind  of  Baptists. 
This  phenomenon  is  by  Mr.  C.  ascribed  to  infant 
baptism.* 

But  every  reasonable  reader,  will  refuse  his  con- 
clusion, because  the  principle  is  not  contained  in 
the  premises,  the  effects  not  found  in  the  cause. 

Mr.  C.  not.  content  with  charging  almost   every 

*  Ttie  reader  will  pardon  me,  for  paying  any 
attention  to  Mr.  C's  observations  on  other  branch- 
es of  the  church.  These  remarks  have  generally 
their  answer  in  thcmsfplves.  I  should  have  paid 
no  attention  to  that  which  he  has  said,  but  for  the 
sake  of  a  certain  class  of  readers.  There  are 
some,  who  easily  take  OiTenGe  at  the  church  of 
Christ,  to  us  all,  infidelity  is  natural,  while  Thomas 
Pain  and  others,  proclaimed  war  against  the  scrip- 
tures, attempting  thereby  to  disarm  the  church. 
Mr.  C.  IS  not  willing  fully  to  df-clare  on  their  sidi^: 
but  while  he  almost  concedes  their  views  with  re- 
spect to  the  Old  testament,  he  attacts  the  church  ' 
in  another  quarter  viz.  her  practice,  doctrine,  and 
profession,  with  a  (e\v  he  may  succeed,  but  with 
the  wary  and  discerning  he  never  wdl.  Tiiose 
who  feel  little  mterest  in  Divine  truth,  or  vital 
piety,  will  content  themselves,  notwithstanding  of 
ail  that  has  been  said,  with  a  supeificial  view  of 
the  subjt'Ct. 


I  BAPTISM.  209 

error  rind  outrage  upon  truth,  upon  Pedo-Baptismj 
but  interwoven  in  its  being,  he  finds  persecution 
with  ail  its  horror?,  on  this  he  reasons  as  fairly,  as 
I  would  do,  should  I  assert  that  adult  baptism,  was 
the  cause  of  the  basest  crime  committed  by  men,  the 
betraying  of  the  son  of  God,  it  was  done  by  Judas, 
an  adult  subject  of  baptism  and  one  indeed  thought 
b>  Mr.  C.  to  have  been  dipped.  On  the  other 
band  the  baptists  were  a  sanctified  people  from 
the  begining.  That  such  was  the  character  of  the 
baptists,  let  readers  judge  for  themselves,  like 
other  branches  of  the  church,  they  have  had  their 
faults.  Let  us  hear  the  facts  from  a  German  writer 
of  the  age,  in  which  the  baptists  arose.  Mr. 
Hoorne,  page  318  319.  Whether  he  was  a  Pedo- 
Baptist,  or  not,  I  cannot  say,  yet  certainly  he  was 
impartial.  ''Their  founders  in  Germany  were 
'  Nicholas  Storch  and  Thomas  Mu'itzerus.  They 
'  rejected  Pcdo-Baptism  and  taught  that  baptized 
'  infants  shovld,  when  tliey  became  adults,  be  re- 
'  baptized.  That  impious  magistrates  should  be 
'  slam,  and  in  their  room  pious  princes  and  ma- 
'  gistrates  should  be  set  up.  They  arose  about 
'  the  year  1525.  They  collected  their,  troops  a' d 
*  occupied  Midhusias  a  city  in  Thuringui ;  from 
'  which  tiiiryled  their  army  to  indiscriniiii.ife  hufch- 
'  ery,  believing  tht^y  should  reign  without  a  rive!, 
'  and  would-have  let't  Germany  a  heap  of  ruins; 
'  but  Philip,  Ldangrave  of  Hes^e  seized  their  lea- 
'  dvr,  Muntzerus  and  took  oft"  his  head,  and  set  it 
'  upon  a  poh,  in  the  centre  of  a  public  pl'^.ce,  as  a 
'  tevr  T  lo  oih.r-i,*  an  1  dispersed  the  troop-;.' 
I'-liiMtzfTuslike    Mr.  Chad    his  own  .standard  of 

*rhis  upon  tlie  wrioie,  w^s  ruygh  IfCi' 
one  oi  Mi.C'ss  hoiv  baptists. 


.^10  BAPTISM. 

♦ 

piety,  and  like  him,  he  attempted  to  destroy  eve- 
ry ocher  systemi  and  set  up  one  in  its  room:  yet  ho 
succeeded  better  amo'i^  the  Gf^rmans  in  obtLuning 
followers,  than  Mr.  C.  has  among  the  Americans. 
Tha*:  was  the  af?e  of -popery,  this  is  not. 

It  is  evident,  from  any  church  history  tliat  men- 
uons  the  events  of  that  day.  that  Mr.  C,  might,  with 
)nore  propriety,  have  described  the  per.-;ecutio>i, 
and  the  full  spirit  of  it  found  in  the  church,  to 
which  he  has  the  honor-  of  belonging,  more  than 
in  any  branch  of  the  protcstant  church.  Every  im- 
partial historian  JL^stifies  the  conduct  of  the  cele- 
brited  Knox,  and  many,  the  conduct  of  Calvin,  in 
those  events  for  which  Mr.  C.  condemns  them: 
but  none  the  conduct  of  the  baptists.  In  justice 
io  this  branch  of  the  church,  we  must,  however  ob- 
serve, that  no  more  of  a  persecuting  spirit  is  now 
found  among  them  than  in  other  branches  of  the 
church;  nor  would  any  of  their  writers,  treated 
thi^  subject  as  Mr.  C  has  done,  I  do  not  believe, 
thattheconductof  these  ancient  Ana-baptists,  pro- 
Cv^ded  from  their  view>;  of  baptism,  nor  do  I  be- 
heve  that  the  persecuting  spirit  of  the  baptists 
arose  from  tlieir  views  of  baptism:  every  impar- 
tial reader  will  equally  deny  both. 

We  shall  next  attend  to  the  history  of  baptism. 
But  before  we  proceed  to  give  a  particular  histo- 
jy  Vv'e  shall  mike  a  few  observations. 

1st.  Mr.  C.  refuses  the  t'-^stimony  of  any  person 
with  respf-ct  to  facts,  who  does  not  agree  with 
him  in  opinion.  Upon  this  general  view  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  as  if  there  could  be  no  controver^sy  on 
this  point,  he  proceeds  to  invalidate  the  testimo- 
ny of  Cvprian  and  others,  b'*cause  their  views, 
not  on  facts,  but  on  abstract  subjects,  diff^n'd 
from  his:  yet  he  never  oace  attempted  to  impeach 


BAPTISM.  211 

the  character  of  any  of  the  fathers,  on  truth  and 
veracity. 

2nd.  This  position,  must  therefore  be  true,  that 
no  witne.-s  can  be  received  in  a  civil  court  to 
give  testinnony,  whose  relij<ious  sentiments  may 
difft  r,  from  the  Judge  before  whom  he  testifies: 
what  are  your  rf:ligiou'^  sentiments?  must  be  the 
first  question  asked  to  every  witness,  who  appears 
before  court.  Qu^^ry,  will  ever  the  world  be  re- 
duced to  that  state  of  iajnorance.  It  w^s  the  po- 
pish opinion  in  the  13,  14,  and  15  centuries,  Mr. 
C.  has  revived  it. 

3rd.  Many  of  the  fathers,  I  grant,  were  in  the 
habit  of  callinj;  baptism  regeneration,  although 
this  manner  of  speech,  is  not  to  be  justified,  yet  it 
is  not  probab'e,  that  their  sentiments  differed 
much  on  this  subject,  from  those  n-nv  s;en(^rally 
believed,  by  both  regular  baptists  and  Pedo -Bap- 
tists. It  was  evidently  a  practice  of  the  Old-tes- 
tament saints,  to  call  circumcision  a  covenant; 
while  it  was  only  a  seal  of  a  covenant,  as  in  Gen. 
17.  13.  So  the  filhers  might  have  called  b  .p- 
tism,  regeneration  bec;\use  baptism  is  the  sign  of 
it.  H  td  this  been  true  however,  their  testimony 
on  facts  might  have  b'^en  neverless  true.  1+  is 
remarkable -'that  Mr.  Robertson,  believed  to  be  a 
Socinian  writer,  was  fully  qu^Uified,  with  Mr.  C. 
to  bear  testimony,  while  the  pious — or  as  he  is 
Tjsually  styled  the  holy  Cyprian,  was  refused. 
O-   this  subject  Mr.  C's.  readers  will  pity  him. 

In  the  history  of  infant  bnptism*  we  have  a  few 

*I  hive  for  myself  translated  the  most  of  the 
foll<»wing  quotations  from  the  oriijinal  works,  or 
extracts  of  the  same,  found  in  the  LUtin  edition  of 
Bingham's   antiquities.     J  thought    on  this  plan. 


212  BAPTISNf. 

remaininsf  sketches,  or  rather  scraps  of  those  fa- 
thers who  wi-Tv  cotemporarj  with  the  ppostles; 
by  comparing  their  testimony,  I  think  it  will  easi- 
ly be  infered,  that  infant  baptism  was  preached 
in  their  daj.  Chmeiis  Romanus  and  Hermes 
the  shepherd,  lived  in  thost*  day^;;  whether  they 
were  thr  person^;,  of  whom  the  Apostle  spake,  I 
cannot  affirm;*  y«t  certairdy  they  were  the  imme- 
diate successors  of  the  apostles.  That  both  these 
writers,  grai  ted  the  possibility  of  the  salvation  of 
infants  will  not  be  denied. 

Clemens  Romanus  says  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians.  'Job  was  just  ard  without  fault, 
'.true,  worshiping  God,  abstaining;  from  every  evil. 
'No  one  is  free  from  cnmiption  (rhupou)  although 
'he  is  but  a  day  old  {ouch  ei  mias  hemeras  he  zoe 
antou,) 

Now  reader  attend  to  the  testimony  of  the  co- 
temporary  writer  cf  Cletnens  pnd  see  the  impor- 
tance attached  by  Hermes  (he  shepherd  to  bab- 
tism.  'It  is  tiecessary,  as  by  water,  they  have  to 
'  ascend,  that  they  may  re-t;  for  they  cannot  other- 

*  wive  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  than  by  lay- 

*  ing  a,?ide  the  mortality  of  this  present  life.  They, 
'therefore  beitig  s-ealed  w:th  tl^e  seal  of  the  Son 
'  of  God,  and  being  de-.d,  enter  into  the  kingdom 
'of  the  Son  of  God.  For  btfore  a  person  receives 
'  the  nnme    of  the    son  of  G^id,  he  is  destined  to 

tliut  I  could  ut  least,  do  more  justice  to  tl  e  facts, 
than  if  I  had  taken  them,  as  found  in  English 
books. 

*From  tne  pat.r,ivc'  nianrur  i*.  Wi:icii  Mr.  C. 
speiiks  of  the-^e  fraher-^,  you  would  think  i.e  was 
personally  acquainted  with  ihtni. 


BAPTISM.  213 

^ death;  but  where  he  receives  th?t  sign,  he  is 

*  freed  from  death,   and  is  delivered  to  lite.     But 

*  tliey  ascend  being  sealed  to  life.  To  these  there- 
'  fore  is  this  seal  preached,  and  they  use  it  that 
'they  may  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.' Pas. 
lib.  lib.  1.  vis.  3.  chap.  3.      . 

Compare  these  declarations,  and  wJiat  is  the 
evident  result.  That  there  could  be  no  salvation 
to  infants  without  baptism.  For  if  as  Clemei  t 
says,  they  had  moral  corruption  from  the  womb, 
and  as  Herms  says,  baptism  the  only  way  by 
which  they  could  enter  into  iieaveri.  It  follows 
that  such  as  desired  tlie  salvation  of  their  chil- 
dren, would  have  this  seal  administered.  Now 
although  we  grant  that  they  attached  an  undue 
importance  to  this  ordinance,  yrt  it  affects  not 
the  point  upon  wliich  we  demand  their  testinion}'. 
To  every  impartial  reader,  they  declare,  that  in- 
fants at  that  time  were  baptized.  . 

Justin  Martyr  who  wr  ite  about  the  year  148, 
has  this  declaration.  'There  rire  many  amon^  us 
'of  each  sex,  sixty  or  seventv  years  i.]d,  uho  were 

*  made  disciples  of  Christ  whc.  children  (hoi  (fc 
'■  paidon  cmafiicliusan  to  Christo.'')  Those  nf 
wjiom  Justin  here  speaks,  were  of  course,  initiat- 
ed into  the  church  during  the  !ifV  tin  e  of  some  of 
the  apostles.  But  in  the  sume  apology,  like 
Hermes,  he  declares  the  necessity  of  b<iptism  for 
Siilvfition  and  this  he  attempts  to  establ  sh  from 
John  3.  3.  5.  But  that  he  also  gratifed  the  d  >c- 
trine  of  original  sin,  is  evident  from  some  passa- 
ges in  his  dialogue  P.315,31G.  That  Justin  viewed 
b;!ptism,  as  coming  in  the  room  of  tircumcisior, 
and  thereby,  granted  the  baptism  of  infants,  is 
abo  evident,  'V/e,'  says  he  'have  not  receivi  d 
Hhat  circunicJon   according  to  the  fles!i,but  in  a 


114  BAPTISM. 

'spirittial  mnnner,  ao  Enoch  and  the  like  (oi 
*  omoioi)  saints  received  it;  but  we  hnverei  eiv- 
'  ed  it  by  bipti-m:  seeini?  we  as  smners,  ar^'  re- 
'ceived  by  the  tnercy  of  God,  and  are  all  fr.  6  in 
'like  m.inripr.  old  copv  P  261. 

Biif  Mr.  C.  \,■^v\r)r  faitiifullv^  mutilated  Mr.  W's. 
q'iotati.n^P.  105,  lOB.  says -T  ere  is  not  then,  I  af- 
farni  the  slisntest  yjrouttd,  to  quote  .[u>^tin  Martyr 
'as  a  testimony  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.''* 

Let  tlie  reader  now  julge  for  himself  If  it  be 
CO), ceded  that  baptism  is  to  the  subj.'ct  no'v,  that 
U'liich,  circumcision  was  to  its  subjects  under  tiie 
Ohl  testament,  then  infants  may  be  biptized.  But 
this  concession  is  absolutely  made  by  Jusluj  Mar- 
tyr, or  otherwise  his  words  can  have  no  meaning. 
H'ld  Mr.  C.  m«de  the  same  concession  with  this 
Tith'T,  he  never  would  have  d  nic  d  the  doc- 
■frine  of  infarit  biptism.  But  it  is  also  evident 
from  the  same  writer  that  he  did  not  think,  with 
Mr.  C.  that  the  nrivihdges  of  New  tc^tamenf  pa- 
re'  ts  were  abndgeri,  tlio-e  now  60  or  70 years  old 
were  disciples  to  Chnst  Avlien  chddren.     So  the 

*The  re-.ider  will  look  at  a  note  in  Mr.  C's' 
bviik,  P.  105.  The  last  and  first  asseriions  o^ 
that  noie  ar*.  equally  true.  Indeed  Mr.  W.  does* 
think,  that  th''  books  assii.Mied  to  'the  li>^*  of  Mr. 
C'?.  Si'.ints — ridch  as  sai.nt  Barn  has  sAun  H  rmes, 
&;c.  Were  never  seen  by  tho>.e  saints  Their 
ttief'logy  ditf«  rs  very  much,  from  that  which 
would  h;ive  been  written  by  the  consp^iniuns  of 
the  rtpostits— one  of  whom  was  an  evangel  st  be- 
fore the  Apostle  Paul,  the  style  sav-  rs  more  of 
th.:  4i:h,  th<>.n  of  the  l-it.  century.  Mr.  C.  knows 
this,  but  »t  serves  hi'*  purpose,  to  hand  forth  spu- 
noud  works,  for  genuine. 


Baptism.  115 

Jews  had  t' em  discipled  when  eight  days  old  by 
circumcision,  this  is  the  opin-on  of  Justin  M  itvr, 
but  not  of  Mr.  C. 

It  appears  to  have  been  an  opinion  generally 
received,  in  the  time  of  Justin  M.:rty.r.  that  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism,  \va>j  essi  ntial  to  salvation: 
W'.thont  doubt,  at  that  period,  they  would  have 
their  children  baptised  The  homilies  supposed 
to  have  been  vi^nttr-n  by  Clement  Ronianus*  has 
this  que-tion,  'of  what  u^eis  ihf^  water  of  bap- 
'ti-m  in  the  worship  of  G)d?  ,He  answers^  1st. 
'Il  pIcdSMS  God  in  that  it  fulfills  his  will.  2nd. 
■  Beciuse  being  regenerated  by  vi^aler  and  renew- 
'  ed  by  God,  the  v.eakness  of  our  nativity,  ^^hich 
'  was  produced  by  man,  is  removed;  so  that  final- 
'  ly  ydu  can  enter  iuto  hfe  but  otherwise  it  is  im- 
possible,' (alios  de  adunaton.  26..  P  698. 

Let  us  next  attend  to  the  te.-timony  of  Ircneus. 
Ii  indeed,  appears  something  diffii-nk  to  tix  pre- 
cissely  ti;e  time  of  the  birth  of  tiiis  celebrated 
man.  Mr.  D.)dvve!i  Ih^t  writes  a  d'sse.'tation  on 
his  age,  fsas  fixed  it  A.  N.  97  tiiis  he  ci>l!(  cts  from 
an  .  xpression  bflreneus,  Mhe  fall  cf  the  empireof 
'Dnmilicn  happered  in  liis  time  '  But  Mr.  Bing- 
ham states*  that  another  copy,  has  it  'aI»iost  ai 
*  his  time.'  Yet  certain  it  is  that  he  was  born  be- 
fore the  year  122,  while  asyet  Poiycarp    the  dis- 

*  I  have  more"  reason  for  supposing  Clement, 
was  the  author  of  these  homilies,  thiin  M\\  C. 
has  for,  suuposing  that  his  saint  B.»rnabas  was  the 
author  of  the  Catholiek  Epistle  ascribed  to  him; 
yet  I  am  far  from  being  convinced  that  Clement 
was  their  author,  allhousih  I  beieve  the  work  to 
be  very  ancient  and  pi"obably  written  about  the 
time  uf  Justin  Martyr. 


216  BAPTISM. 

ciple  of  John  the  Divine  was  living,  whom  Ire- 
neus  declr.res  he  saw  and  heard  prf-ach,  his  tes- 
tinriony  should  be  of  force  on  this  question, were 
infant  childrt  n  admitted,  bj  baptism,  members  of 
the  visible  church  in  that  age?  The  sincerity 
of  his  assertions  will  not  be  disputed  by  any  chris- 
tian, he  sealed  with  his  blood,  the  doctrine  he  pro- 
fessed. He  uses  these  words  book  2f)d.  chnp. 
39.  *Christ  came  to  save  all  by  himsflf,  all  I  say. 
'  who  by  him  are  regenerate  unto  God,  both  infants 
'  and  little  oiies,  young  men  &  elder  persons,'  By 
the  expression  'regenerate  unto  God.'  he  certain- 
ly meant  bapt:z('d  wnto  God,  because  he 
uniformly  u^es  the  vvo;ds  in  this  sense. 
Tims  he  says  in  book  Itt  chap.  19.  'Because 
'to  deny  baptism  vvliich  is  our  regeneration  to 
'  God'  {eis  thcon  anagenncsecs.)  He  has  also 
the>e  words.  'When  Christ  give  the  command- 
*  ment  of  regenerating  into  God,  he  said  go  atid 
^  teach  all  nations.'  &c. 

Tertuilian  ordained  trie  Bishop  of  Carthage^  was 
born  in  the  last  part  of  the  3rd  century.  He  ex- 
presses his  mind  clearly  on  tb.ii!  sabject,  as  it  re- 
spects the  fact,  that  infants  w  ere  baptized.  I  grant 
that  upon  the  s'jbject  of  baptism,  he  lield  some 
opinions  entirely  unjustifiable,  and  in  some  things 
alm.ost  as  wild  in  his  notions  as  Mr  C  He  was 
indeed  lather  opposi'd  to  the  baptism  of  infants, 
or  any  unmarried  person.  He  advises  that  in 
most  cases  it  be  delayed  until  after  marriage;  yet 
he  opposed  tlie  baptit^m  of  infants,  merely  because 
they  were  unmarried.  But  he  expressly  decliTes 
that  in  case  of  necessity  arriving  from  evident  ap- 
proach of  death,  their  baptism  should  not  be  de- 
layed. And  this  he  does  upon  the  authority  of 
Christ's  words  John  3  5.    *ExQept  a  man  be  born 


BAPTISM.  an 

of  wv.ier  ann  of  tlie  spirit,  he  cannot  entrr  into  tl  e 
iii'igdoiM  of  God.'  See  Ttriullian  on  baptism 
ch;  p.  18,  19. 

Origin  that  was  his  cotenrif  r  ry,  &ind«  ed  e  .r- 
lier  in  the  church  than  leiiuiluin,  alfords  us  am- 
pK'  testimony,  both  as  it  icspectB  his  own  views, 
and  th<-  opiiiion  of  others  in  iii>  age,  -everal  tiiiukp 
stHfid  much  ill  111'-  f»vnras  a  witne?-:  he  wa*  born 
about  tl;e  year  183  Hi^  father  &  grand  fatltr  boiii 
professed  chrisluiiVity;  and,  Ix-ug  born  himself 
Witliin  a  little  more  than  100  years  of  ttie  lifertime 
of  some  of  the  aporitles,  he  must  have  had  a  particu- 
lar knowledge  (»f  the  act>,  practices,  and  views 
of  the  church,  frnhi  the  earliest  i!ges.  of  her  New 
testnment  history.  Leonidas,  hi>  fatlur,  sufleri  d 
martyrdom  in  the  persetutiim rinsed  h)  S*  v(  rus  ti  c 
R  man  Emperor;  at  which  time,  Or-gm,  who  wns 
or;ly  18  years  of  age,  wrote  a  letter  to  hi-  futf  <  r, 
to  continuf  steadfast  in  his  adhc  raice  to  truiii, 
to  death.  He  says:  'The  baptism  of  children  are 
'  given  f  r  the  forgive ie>^s   of   their  sins:  but  wliy 

*  are  children,  by  the  usage  of  the  church,  baj)tized, 
'  if  they  have  nothing  thnt  wants  forgive  ne^^r' 
He  adds:  'It  is  because,  by  baptism,  the    pollution 

*  of  our  birth  is  taken  away,  'hat  infants  ;irp  b:.p- 
'lized.'  Naj',  he  usserts,  that  the  practict  was  ri - 
ceived  from  tfie  apostles  I  c  <  ecl:ire>:    The  church 

*  had  also  an    order    from    the    apostles    to    gi\e 

*  baptism  -to  infants:  for  they  to  whom,  tl  e  DiviriC 

*  mysteries  vv«  re  committed,  knew  thr.t  liitrewas, 

*  in  all  persons,  a  natiir;il  pollution,  which    ought 

*  to  be  wasjied  awny,  by  water  and  the  spirit.' 

Cyprian  and  Ambrose    (ieclare,  that  it  was  tlie 

original  practice  of  the  church  to   baptize  infciiits. 

I    was  even  urtred  against  P,  lagius  that  he  denied 

the  doctJiwe  ©forijjinal  sin,  and  vttiic  grauteid  limt 

U   •      .     ■ 


Sl«  BAPTISM. 

infants  should  be  baptized.  'Mftn  skhdep  m'*,? 
says  Pelagius,  'as  if  I  denied  baptism  to  infants.' 

Thus,  reader,  I  havr  tfiven  you  a  brief  view  ottlie 
testimony  of  tbe  first  New  testament  writers  up- 
on tlijs  subject;  I  think  it  remai  is  evident, 
thntthe  writers  of  the  two  fiist  centuries,  admit- 
ted the  baptism  of  infants;  and  tiiar  it  had  beeB 
constimtly  priictized  in  the  church  from  the  earli- 
est ages  of  the  New  testament.  There  is  not  a  sin- 
gle hint  given,  of  adults  possessing  an  exclusive 
right  to  this  ordinance. 

The  false  views  of  the  church  ar.  that  time,  foriti 
a  reason,  why  it  is  vi-ry  improbable,  that  tht  y 
would  neglect  the  baptism  of  their  children.  It  is 
conceded  by  all,  that  infants  may  be  re<i;enerated; 
but  their  expressions  seem  to  say,  that  baptism  was 
regeneration;  it  \vr»s  not  likely,  with  this  opinion, 
tliey  would  ne.i^lect  the  ordinance.  They  held 
that  ba-ptism  was  essential  to.  salvation;  with  this 
view  would  they  neglect  the  administration  of  it 
to  their  children? 

The  primitive  fathers,  generally  granted  tlie 
doctrine  of  original  sin.  Pelagius  was  among  the 
first  who  openly  denied  it;  and  therefore  should 
have  been  among  the  first  to  deny  infant  baptism;* 
for  without  guilt,  any  atonement  is  unnecessary, 
or  any  sign  to  rt»present  it. 

The  heresy  of  denyirig  infant  baptism,  did  not 
m)ke  its  appearance,  until  the  third  century,  whf^n 
iTiaiiy  other  errors  made  their  appearance,  soriie 
of  which  Mr.  C.  mentions.     He    should  have  ad- 


*  I  should  think,  that  Mr.  C.  might  feel  hurt  when 
he  finds  the  hereticalP'laarius  considering  it  slan- 
der, to  hold  that  which  Mr.  C.  thinks  is  an  honor* 
O  teinpora.  0  mores. 


BAPTISM.  2  IS 

a«d  this  opinion  of  the  baptists  to  the  list.  That 
was  the  age  ol  the  novelty  of  sentiment.  They 
began  to  deny  inf  mts  a  nuiht  to  baptism.  This 
is  the  reason  why  Cyprian,  Austin,  Clirysostim 
and  others  of  the  sur.ce -dinaf  fathers,  are  so  ex- 
plicit on  the  subject  ofbapti-^m. 

The  writers  uf  the  two  fir«t  centuries  have  but 
little  on  the  subject  of  baptism;  became  the  right 
of  children  to  that  ordinance  at  that  time,  was  not 
disputed.  It  farfid  with  the  subject,  as  vv'ith  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  until  the  lime  of  Ariu-^, 
little  wassaid  on  that  subject;  but,  after  his  time, 
we  have  an  abuitddnce  on  the  subject  of  the  Trin- 
ity. The  church  is  apt  to  assert  a  truth  but  feebly, 
until  it  is  opposed;  but  opposition  gives  life  to  the 
testimony  ot  the  church. 

Mr.  C.  by  his  despising  the  te-timony  of  tlie 
early  f:\ther?,by  his  r»-viling  their  characters,  con- 
cedes to  Use  world,  that  their  testimony  lay  against 
him.  A  man,  who  in  court  has  a  witness  coll.'vd, 
who  test  I  fie  ■?  in  his  favor,  will  endeavor  to  estab- 
lish the  character  of  that  witness.  Had  Mr.  C.  be- 
lieved the  witness  of  these  fathers  on  his  side,  he 
would  not  have  called  forth  the  hid  of  a  standerinn; 
Robinson,  to  cdlumniate  them.  No,  he  vvt)uld  ha\e 
carefully  concealed  their  failings.  Hss  ingenuity 
to  impeach,  is  his  insrenious  cof  fes-ion,  that  all 
their  testimony  was  in  favor  of  Pedo  baptism. 


THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM  * 
We  have  now  come  to  that  part  of  the  debate- 


*  If  Mr  C.  has. done  Mr.  W.  luile  justice  m  u.e 
other  part  of  the  aebiilfc,  he  has    done   nnn  sui!. 


^d  BAPTTSM. 

for  which  Mr.  C.  expressed  so  much  fonli'ifss  dii- 
rifig  the  dehate.  When,  at  any  time,  be  either  vv  \s 
exhausted  himsetf,  or  had  not  filled  up  his  time, 
he  wouhl  fly  to  thi=»  >ub)ect,  infornini;  the  au- 
d  ence  tnat  he  would  fill  up  the  time  as  he  pleas- 
'eJ.*  I(  must  however  be  observed,  that  he  never 
touched  this  p^rt  of  the  debate,  with  any  thing  like 
a  true  s:tir;t  of  investigation.  H-  sp"n:l3  a  great 
s'^nre  of  his  time,  ifi  pr:iisirig  Lexogripheis;  no 
t;  ne  in  givinsf  trtiethe  analysis  of  words.  He  sports 
much  and  does  little  on  this  point  of  deb  ite. 

It  i^  not  our  intention  hereto  ofter  to  the  publ'c 
finy  critici'^'iis  upon  the  G  eek  word,  1ransl;.ited  to 
baptize,  W -iter-  have  done  this  to  good  purpose 
already.  M  ■.  Rxlsfoii  in  a  late  publicatio  i,  cer- 
tainly h:\s  given  a  very  ju4  ri«MV  o(  this  part  of  tlie  . 
subject;  and  I  tliinlc,  has  done  justiee  to  theGr-'pk 

lesson  tuc  nude  ut"  Oipiia-n.  ia  tun  part  of  tnc  .1' - 
b'C,  be  has  Mr.  W.  i^iving  some  tolerable  good 
criiicisnis  on  the  Grce Ic  words:  but  some  of  the?e, 
ho.vever  good,  were  never  -een  by  Mr  W.  until 
he  read  tnem  in  Mr.  C's  book.  Othur  criticims 
Mr.  VV.  did  make;  these  Mr.  C.  has  mutdAtid. 
S  Kue  ot  the  arguaients  ire  entirely  misrepresented, 
<j.  g  those  svtiicii  wyre  drtwn  from  the  typical 
aiotiemeut.  You  wouhl  suppose,  that  Mr.  VV.  be- 
iieved,  that  the  w  iter  of  baptism  respected 
tiie  ground  of  juslification  alone,  which  is  not  a 
fact.        . 

t 

*  It  is  supposed  Mr.  C  did  th;s  u  picli,  s  qu  fiel 
W'th  Mr.  Fiudly,  on«  of  the  Judges,  because  he 
k  tew  thit  the  J  idges  wer;-  bou  id  to  keep  the 
disputants  to  the  qaestio  \.  II'.  mis-^ed  ids  ami,  ne- 
aesdity  alone  impelled  Mr.  F,  to  use  this  power.-    . 


BAPTISM.  321 

■vvonls.But  I  observed,  durine  the  piblic  debat«j 
and  I  noticed  the  same  in  Mr.  C's  strictures  oa 
Mr.  RV"?  reviewv  that  he  scarcely  attempts  to  re- 
move the  difficulties,  which  stand  in  his  \va)',  IVoin 
the  meaning  of  the  original  words.  I  iiave  observ- 
ed the  same  thing,  with  most  of  the  baptist  wri- 
ters. They  have  a  beaten  track  in  which  they  all 
travel;  indeed  some  attempt  it,  who  do  not  know 
the  difference  between  the  Greek  and  Dutch. 
And  yet  when  Pedo  B.\ptists  attempt  to  shew  that 
the  word  baptize  IS  frequently  U'^ed,  both  by  hea- 
then and  sacred  writers,  when  it  cannot  be  transla- 
ted, fo  (Zip,  toplunge:  and  must  mean  to  sprinkle,  to 
))our,  no  reply  i'^  given,  and  frequently  none  at- 
tempted. I  shall  therefore,  only  for  the  present, 
briffly  reason  from  the  nature  of  the  ordinance. 

The  only  matter  here  in  dispute,  is,  how  much 
WAter  is  necessary  in  the  administratrion  of  the 
ordinance  of  baptism?  O  i  this  Pedo  Baptists  have 
had  but  little  difficulty;  because,  from  a  drip- to 
the  fullness  of  the  ocean,  they  do  not  ohjcct  It 
is  sufficient  that  the  element  of  water  be  used. 
Water  is  a  sign;  and  until  the  baptists  can  shew, 
thit  the  command  which  requires  the  use  of  this 
sign,  specifies  also  the  quantity  to  be  used,  we 
niustregar'd  all  their  reasoning  as  inconclusive. 

The  word  baptize,  in  its-tuUesf,  supposed  extent, 
can  determme  nothing  in  favor  of  the  baptists. 
For,  siip  )ose  it  does  mean  plunging  entirely  under 
water;  >et  they  cannot  draw  the  conclusion,  that 
baptism  is  not  rightly  .administered,  unless  by 
plunging,  because  deipnon.  tli^  word  used  to  pont 
•out  the  meal  taken  in  the  Lord's  supper,  means  a 
full  feast.  But  it  is  conceded,  that  the  Lord's  sup- 
per miy  be  rightly  celebrated,  by  eating  a  mor- 
sel of'  bread,  atid  drinkini?  a  small  quantity  of 
■  V  2 


222  BAPTISM. 

wine.  T'k  C  jiriat'uTi^',  repr  )V'h1  bv  the  apostie 
Paul  in  It.  C  r.  11.  A  )pr'ar  to '.  we  fallen  int'Mhe 
same  mistake  in  eating  the  Lord's  supper,  that  ilio 
b-iprists  have,  with  respect  to  baptism.  Thi^v  sup- 
posed that,  becau-^e  the  word  deipnon  'i^niti.-d  a  t'lrll, 
meal,  they  thertfore  eat  and  drank  he  r'lv,  S  » !l^e 
b.pti<ts,  because  thfy  •ssppo-^e  the  W'^rd  baplize 
inedi- 1 i plunging,  nm>t  ihercfnre  conclude  tfi.it  ;t 
cannot  be  baptism,  unless  the  person  is  wholly  put 
under  water. 

We  anrue  l=;t.  Th-^t  if  sprinkling  with  the  blood 
of  >acrjfice*  wa^  saffic  ent  to  represeiit  the  clean- 
sing efficricy  of  Christ's  bloo.l,  then  the  sprinkling 
of  water  in   baptism  is  sufficient. 

But  the  foroier  is  true,   Aiid  therf-fore  the  latter. 

That  tliis  was  the  end  proposed  by  the  bl.o(J 
of  sacrifices,  is  not  denied.  Bit  the  bload  of  Je- 
su:=,  is,  in  scripture,  called  a  fountain,  Zach.  13.  I, 
*i:i  that  day  tliere  shall  be  a  fountain  opened  to 
the  house  of  David  and  to  the  inhab  tants  t)f  Je- 
ru-alein,  f  >r  sin  and  for  uncleanness.'  But  thi? 
[fountain'  was  sufficiently  represented,  by  sprink- 
ling; and,  in  the  use  of  it,  required  bv  the  cerimo-' 
niiil  law,  the  sign  and  the  thiru  siirnified  had  their 
connexiori  shewn.  Heb.  ^,19  20.  'For  wfien 
M'^ses  had  spoken  every  precept  to  all  th**  peo- 
ple acceding  to  the  law,  he  took  the  blood  of 
calves  and  of  goat»,  with  water  and  scarlet  wool, 
and  hysop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all 
the  people,  saying,  thi^  is  the  blo'od  of  the  testa- 
ment  which  Gid  hath  enjoined  unto  you.' 

L^.t  us  for  the  present,  take  it  for  truth,  that,  by 
the  blood  of  sacrifices,  nothing  more  was  ifiteiid- 
ed  to  be  emblematic  dlv  set  forth,  than  the  justify- 
ing righteou:ine-!s  of  Christ;  yet.  bv  this  act  of 
6©J^  the  belieyer  is.  perfectly  washed  from  all  le- 


BVPTISM.  223 

gal  eu'i*;  wh^reaf?,  the  wa^jhincr  of  re?pnif'r'>tion, 
si  -nfied  i  » the-sacr  iin«uif  ori)aptism,  is  but  p.irti'^l. 
C  'rrwptiOMs,  mor  il  p  UuMon,  remain  even  -f- 
ter  re|i!;eiier:»tit)n.  Ti!eref<jre,  dccordintj  to  Mr. 
C's.  concession,  the  act  of  surinkjin;;  blood,  was 
a  fit  si/n  to  »epr;'sent  the  perfect,  the  ei>tire  wnsh- 
intc  of  a  believer;  whereas,  tve  only  plead  that 
w-ter,  used  in  b  iptisnj,  pijj[riifie^  the  renewing  of 
the  heliever  in  part.  But  as  the  former  wis  le- 
presenled  by  sprinkling,  so  I  say,  may  the  latter 
also, 

0 

SECOND    ARGUMENf. 

If  the  mode  of  baptism,  be  distinct  from  its  icinjg«, 
then  it  is  not  necessary  to  phing:ethe  person  en- 
tirely u:id'  r  water,  ia  the  administration  of  thi» 
sacrr\mei,t. 

But  the  form'^r  is  true.  And  theref)rethe  latter. 

That  the  mode  U  .distinct  from  its  beinsf,  will 
appear,  by  observing,  that  the  only  thini?  es  e;i- 
tirdly  necess -ry  to  the  bein^  of  the  ordinat;ce  in 
its  extern-il  :idministration,  is  the  u^^e  of  water;  the 
nam«.  of  the  per-ons  of  the  Trinity,  the  subject 
suitable,  and  the  administrator  duly  authorised. 
Bread  and  wirte  were  the  elements  used  in  the  sa- 
crament of  the  supper,  but  no  bapti-t  will  say 
tliat  it  is  essential  to  the  beinijf  of  the  ordi* 
nance,  that  a  person  sliould  si-t  at  table,  although 
Christ  sat  at  it;  that  the  bre^d  should  be  unleaven- 
ed, although  't!ie  bread  used  in  its  first  institution 
was  unleavened;  or  that  it  should  be  administer- 
ed after  ni^lit  in  an  upper  chamber,  although 
th'-eAvere  facts  in  its  first  institution. 

VViter  is  the  sis<n  used  inbptism,  but  nothing 
Qan  depend    upoa  either  ita  quality,  or  quaotityj 


'22i  BAPTISM. 

because  an  ocean  of  pure  wafer,  cannot  wash 
awriy  a  single  stain,  or  rt  move  a  t^ingle  corruption; 
it  is  only  a  sign.  If  is  in  vain  for  you,  reader,  to 
listen  to  a  great  and  tedious  process  of  Greek  in- 
vestigation, to  .prove  that  ba|)tizing  meant  plung- 
jni{,  seeing  that  a  drop  of  water  is  as  truly  a  sign, 
as  a  river  would  be.  Th's  is  the  reason  why 
neither  Mr.  C.  nor  any  other  baptist,  can  be 
brought  to  prove  the  necessity  of  dipping  from 
the  nature  of  the  ordinance. 

AVhen  the  baptists  have  succeeded  in  proving 
(which  they  never  yet  l^ive  dot  e)  that  John  the 
Baptist  and  the  disciplp>  dipped,  the  utmost  infer- 
f'ice,  will  not  eff'  ct  (he  m^de  used  by  the  P<  do 
B^.ptist.  They  will  only,  after  all,  infer,  that 
plungir.£;  is  a  suitable  method  in  warm  clinriates; 
as  if  I  should  assert  that  sitting  at  the  Lord's  ta- 
ble was  a  suitable  mode  in  receiving  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  supper,  because  Christ  and  hit;  de- 
eiples  sat  at  meat.  » 

THIRD  ARGUMENT. 

If  God  will  liave  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  then 
«prir  kling  is  sufficient  in  baptism. 

But. the  former  is  true.  And  therefore  the  latter. 
Our  fir-t  assertion  will  not  be  denied.  That  r;ur 
infi  rer;c.>  is  just  will  appear,  by  con-idering.  tjiat 
no  ordinance  which  God  requhes,  will,  in  any  i:e- 
gpect.  violate  any  of  his  precept-;  but  (he  sixth 
commandment,  which  forb.dr?  us  to1<ill,  must  re- 
quire 'us  to  uv:e  all  lawful  endeavours  to  preserve 
cur  own  life,  and  the  lives  of  others.'  But  a  great 
many  di-ea-'es,  to-which  the  hum;m  body  is  sub- 
ject, at'd  some  seas'^ns  of  the  year,  entirely  for- 
bid the  use  of  the  cold  bath;  &  to  adminisler  it,  is 


BAPTISM.  32S 

tbe  form  required  "by  the  baptist  churcVi,  woti'd 
endanger  the  life  of  the  subject,*  whereas,  in 
some  cliniaties,  and  to  some  consdlutions,  it  would 
be  agreeable,  and  wholecome.  There  is,  howe- 
ver, nothing  essentially  belonging  to  this  ordi- 
nance, but  that  which  is  equally  suited  to  all.  sea- 
sons, constitutions,  and  clinistes;  because  that  the 
gospel  of  which  it  is  a  seal,  is  so  adapted.  To 
wf  atever  country  or  climate,  mitiisfers  were  sent 
to  preach,  they  were  also  to  baptize. 

I  have  thus  in  a  few  words,  endeavoured  to  es- 
tablish the  assertion,  that  sprinkling  water  is 
sufficient  in  the  administration  cf  the  sacrament 
of  baptism.  Allhousjh  we  grant  that  dipping  Is 
baptism,  bec.»use  the  elemer>t  of  water  is  u  ef', 
yet  f  object  to  d  pping  for  the  followiig  reasons. 

1st.  BecTuse  it  is  unnpcessary.  Any  water  op- 
pl-ed  ill  t'  e  name  of  the  Tjrnity  by  a  person  duly 
authori-ed.  is  sufficient;  a  drop  is  as  truly  em- 
b'em^tical  f^s  an  ocean. 

2,  d.  Because  it  make-J  the  ordinance  to  con- 
sist, not  in  the  element  of  water,  but  in  the  quan- 
tity u-^ed,  ^^o  that  the  subject  is  not  b  ptised  unless 
emirely  put  under  water. 

*B.ptists  will  tell  you  tiidt  thry  never  knew 
any  pM>on  huitby  bi  ing  dipjied.  1  tir~t  di^puie 
tlietruUiof  t:e  disertioii,  I  tijiuk  coatr.iry  facts  can 
be  producsd  They  mostly  liONAevrT  negfecl  the 
ordinance  until  the  season  w;H  admit.  But  the 
idea  they  wi-h  to  hold  oul,  is  rather  that  there  is 
a  kind  of  mir;  cuious  preservation  of  the  sub- 
j  -ct.  'i'hid  wdl  do  with  f-inaticks.  But-I  would 
jnf.'rni  the  pUblic  tiiut  water  used  in  this  ordi- 
nal ce,  Will  produce  the  suinu-  ell'ect  as  at  olher 
tiiues. 


208  BAPTISM. 

3rH.  Because  it  arffues  erreat  ignnrarc^  of  thu 
ordinance.  It  savors  too  much  of  the  ii?elp<^p  cer- 
emonies att!>ched  to  the  ordinance  of  bapti-m  in 
the  darkness  of  popery.  A.  baptist  will  coptend 
a=  firmly  for  dippin?  in  baptism,  as  a  Catbolic 
did,  at  that  time,  for  the  sifrn  of  across  in  tlie  {id- 
ministration  of  this  sacrament. 

4th.  It  c?lls  too  much  of  the  attention  to  lie. 
sign;  nothing  in  tl-.e  administration  of  this  ordi- 
nance should  even  for  a  moment,  divert  the  atten- 
tion from  tfig  thin^  signifif-d.  If  the  subject  be  a, 
babe,  then  the  faith  of  the  parent  should  b^  I'c- 
tively  employed,  in  clr.iming  the  promise,  made 
through  them  to  their  children.  It  the  subject  be 
an  adult,  he  sliould  exrrcise  faitlt  in  the  \ery  act 
of  receiving  the  ordmar  ce;  but  his  atter.tioii  will 
certainly  be  called  off,  by  a  plunge  iti  co!d  \vat(  r. 

To  this  vir;v  of  the  subject,  hovvevf  r,  Mr.  C  ob- 
ject*. To  those  arguments  which  nie  founded  upon 
the  original  words,  I  do  not  propose  to  attend  to. 
He  knows,  he  ft  els,  notwithstanding  of  all  liis 
egotism  and  boasting,  that  he  was  safisfi<  d  on 
this  subjf  ct  during  the  public  d»bate.*  But  we 
shall    attei  d   to  a  few  of    tsis    objections,   which. 

*From  ttie  gieut  tlirtats  ol  iVir.  C.  wtiat  he 
would  do  with  his>  oj-ponent,  v\tieij  he  v\ouid  con.e 
to  riiis  part  of  the  depate,  Jt  was  txpicted,  iie 
would  ai  least,  present  soniethiiig  ingenious  on 
this  part  ot  the  tubjict;  but  all  tl.t  karned  gen- 
tlemen on  the  stage  Willi  wlioiu  I  conversed,  telt 
theuiselyts  exirei'  ely  disappointed.  We  &u^pect. 
l.is  Grtek  bkill,  indttd,  to  be  very  dehcieni;  al- 
ti.uugli  he  has  persuaded  a  numbir  that  he  is  a 
perlfcct  bdept  ui  tiiib,  and  aliiiOi>i  eve'ry  tiling  tise^ 


•BAt^TISlVl  e^t 

?ie  gave  in  reply,  loihat  wIugIi  hs  states  were  Mr. 
1^  's.  {jj^eecues; 

H«  says  P.  140.  'I  dt-ny  that  baptism  has  a 
'r  >pecf  to  Ihe.bloud  cil  sprinkling,  bul  that  u  de- 
'  notes  the  vva^hin^  ot'i:ej;eneration  ai<d  the  reiu  w- 
'  ing  of  tie  H  \y  G  osf,  and  <«s  emblemaucaj  ^f 
*lh«'  bunal  and  resurrection  of  Christ  and  of  our 
'death  and  burial  with  him  unto  sin,  and  of  (3ur 
•  lesurri  cfinn  wilhhirnto  a  new  hfe.'  Upon  ihig 
I  would  ibseve:  • 

1st.  That  the  'Washing  of  reareneration,'  is  in^ 
de»^d  the  thine  chiefly  ?jguihf^  by  the  sign  of  wa- 
ter u-ed  in  b)ptisn»;it  is  not  however,  the  oily 
thi4io;.  Juslitication,  regfnerafion,  at  d^anctifica- 
fioj^i  aliJiougli  all  distinct  in  their  tiaturc,  yet 
have  the  s-.ime  ground,  the  s:».me  foundation,  the 
blood  of  Jesu?.  Hf'nce  being  wasfud  in  this 
blood,  is  U'fr-d  to  denotf,  nc-t  only  the  justihca- 
tion  of  a  believer,  but  also  that  vvuik  of  the  spi- 
rit, by  which  the  belieVei;  is  finally  perfected. 
R<  v.  1,  5.  6.  'Unto  him  that  hath  loved  us,  ai  d 
washed  us  from  otjr  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and 
liath  made  us  kings  and  priests  urto  God.'  In 
this  passai^e  it  is  evident,  that  in  every  respt-ct, 
in  which. we  were  stained  and  polluted  with  sin, 
the  blood  of  Jesus  has  washed  us  tVom   it. 

2nd.  It  is  only  because  the  debt  of  the  believer 
is  paid  bv  the  death  of  Christ,  that  he  can  be  re- 
generated, or  snnrtified.  Tf  e  washinar  of  reo^e- 
neration  cou'd  have  no  existence  withi-ut  the 
sh«  diug  of  that  blood  which  is  the  washing  of 
justification. 

3rd.  It  follows  that  every  eniblematical  repre- 
Ser>tation  of  justification,  is  also  a  sign  of  tbe 
washing  of  regeneration,  where  the  things  signi- 


S28  BAPTISM. 

fi*^d  are    inseparably  connected,  s.o  also  must  tlie 
eipns  bf. 

4iii.  Tliat  bnptism  docs  leach,  tl  e  de;ith,  bnfi- 
al  aiid  resurrection  ol  Christ,  is  ccnceded.  Rut 
Mr.  C.  by  th>s  ci  nression  hae  yi^^ldtd  the  print 
ii;  dispute,  her  ;:use,  be^oid  a'.l  dcubt,  this  doctrine 
Tvas  tjuiglit  by  the'typic  1  blo()d  th:it  uas  s'prir  kit  d 
u  ,der  t!ip  cerimonial  luw.  Christ  Jfsus  was 'the 
L  n.b  of  God  sbnn  from  tie  A  ui  tlfition  of  tlie 
norld.'  Th'P  deiith  was  prefigured  by  the  shed- 
inp  of  tlie  l)]o(id  of  .beasts  sl;iii!  in  si-crific*',  this 
\v;  s  sprinkit  d  upon  the  people  to  it  tim.!ie  their 
interest  in  it.  Now  if  ^prnlclir.gihis  bh^od  up"n 
the  people  was  a  sufficient  rC)  resentation  of  this 
d<'ath  as, Mr.  C  concedes,  vvh}  doe?  he  iefu>c 
sprinkling:  of  water  as  a  sufiicient  represeutalion 
of  the  fiame  thinp;. 

Mr:  C.  endeavours  to  esiahhsh  his  mod  ot  bap- 
ti-m  from  Rom.  6.  4,  6.  ^Btij'ied  with  him  by  h-*])- 
tism  into  dc  ith,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
fr^m  the  dcud,  by  tlie  Glory  of  the  Father,  even 
so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.'  P.  140, 
208*  For  the  proper  understandme:  of  this  pas- 
sa_e  I  ob  crve  tliat  baptism  is  a  *=«  al  of  union  to 
Christ,  fis  it  is  a  ?=eal  of  all  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant     of    grace.     The    blessing    is     in   two 

*Thi-  latter  quot.  lion  is  taken  froni  Mr  C*s 
C  tpchism — This  is  the  only  place  in  which  I  have 
p.-.id  any  attention  to  that  xvi  rk,  a  lay  genthnan 
banf'ed  me  a  full  re- 1\  to  that  ci-lerhism,  I  t))ought 
it  not  necessary  to  pnblisl)  it.  Had  I  ihoujzht  Mr.  C. 
Bericus,  I  shouhl  hiive  replied.  However,. to  eve- 
.  ry  discerning  reader,  it  carr  es  its  contut  \\<-:-.  It 
may  serve  f'r  snort;  but  the  intelligtnt  and  Eeri- 
ous  reader  is  disgusttd  with  it.       ' 


BAPTISM.  229 

respects  united  to  Cliri&t.  He  has  a  vita^ 
union  10  him,  in  which  senst-,  Christ  is  ihe  vine 
and  tliej  are  the  branches.  They  are  in  Vns,  re- 
spect said  lo  be  one  si  irit  with  Cliri^t.  John  15. 
5.  I  Cor.  6.  17.  But  there  is  also  a  union  in  law 
between  Clui-t  and  the  believer.  In  this  se^.sp  the 
believer  was  crucitied  with  Christ.  G\l.  2^20  In 
the  same  sense  he  was  buried  with  Christ.  Now 
beciU'-e  baptism  is  a  seal  of  that  union,  subsisting 
between  Christ  an<l  the  b^-liever,  tltey  are  s;kid 
to  be 'buried  with  him  by  baptism.'  So  ihra  bap- 
tism intimates  that  the  believer  died  and  was 
buried  with  Christ.  The  death  and  burial  of 
Christ,  stand  necessarily  connected — tliat  sign 
which  represents  the  one,  mustnecessarily  repre- 
sent the  othei:  but  the  death  of  Christ  iscf-lled  the 
sprinklin;?  or  staining  of  blood:  Isaiah  63.  2,  3, 
which  may  be  represented  by  the  sprinkling  of  wa- 
ter in  baptism. 

It  indeed  appears  strange  to  hear  Mr.  C.  state 
80  fully  tlie  connexion  between  a  figure  and  the 
reality.  Christ  was  buried,  so  a  person  baptized, 
must  be  buried  under  water.  Christ  arose; so  the 
person  must  come  up  from  under  the  water.*  To 
understand*however,  the  truth  of  the  thing  signifi- 
ed, our  attention  will  be  calhid  from  the  mode,  to 
which  Mr.  C.  adhears  so  particularly.  Ti^e  sub- 
ject to  be  b.Aptized  will  rather  enquire,  was  Christ 
my  surety?  am  I  cruciti''d  with  Christ.''  was  I  bu- 
ried with  him.''  If  these  things  are  facts,  then  1 
may  take   the  sign  and  the  seal  of  the^^e  ble-^sings. 

*  Why  but  Mr.  C.  teaches  in  order  to  make  out 
the  fi-j:ure,  that  the  person  should  stay  under  water 
3  days.?  For  if  he  will  follow  the  letter,  this  too 
should  be  done. 

V 


2S0  BAPTISM. 

It  was  the  chief  object  proposed  by  the  baptists  to 
call  the  attention  of  thur  members,  to  there  ex- 
ternal ceremonies,  while  little  attention  was  paid 
tp  the  heart,  so  baptists  adhere  clearly  to,  and  say 
much  about  the  mode  of  baptism.  If  more  of  that 
time  was  spent,  in  searching  for  the  possession  of 
the  thing  signified  by  the  water  used  in  this  or- 
dinance, it  would  be  better  for  the  souls  of  their 
members. 


REMARKS  ON  THE  DEBATE,  BY    THE  REV. 
SAMUEL    FINDLEY. 

Christian  brethren^  of  every  profesHon; 

I  am  confident  you  will  agree  with  mp  that 
Christianity  without  truth  and  integrity,  is  but  a 
sliadow  without  its  substiince.  On  the  same 
principle,  the  p.  rson  who  writes  or  speaks  fur  the 
edificition  of  tlie  christian  vv<;rUI,  is  expected  to 
be  eminent,  t"or  his.  undoubled  veracity.  I:i  pro- 
portion as  he  is,  on  tlin  other  hand,  detected  of 
incapacity,  or  iiidi«iposition,  to  speak  or  write  the 
truth,  on  every  occasion,  his  reputation  in  tha 
christian  world,  ought  to  be  d*[)ri<;aled,  and  his 
influence  rei.oui  ccd.  Facts  iniiumerabie,  might 
be  adduc<  d,  to  evince  the  correctne-^s  of  this  prin- 
ciple. F.'r  instance,  shew  me  a  man  who  is  uf 
known  di-ingenuity  in  his  statement  of  facts;  and 
I  will  shew  to  the  world  a  man  on  whose  tloctrmal 
views  of  the  christian  religion,,  there  is  little,  if 
anything,  truly  scriptural,  and  vice  versa ;  point 
me  out  a  man,  wtio  dares  to  he  ajiainst  the  Holy 
Ghost,  speakuig  in  his  own  word,  in  leaclung,  ag 
the  doctrines  thereof,  the  vegtiries  ot  his  owa 
brain;  and  F  wll  point  you  out  a  man,  who  will 
r<  gard  tRe  tiuth,  in  his  sta'emerit  of  facts, 
only  so  far  as  his  sinister  ends  may  be 
thereby  promott  d.  Now  as  that  old  draaron,  wlio 
i-t  the  Devil  hi  d  Satan,  \vra  always  hud  his  chil. 
dr:  n  in  ihe  world,  who  deliaht  to  do  his  works; 
he  has  tlieni  stdl.  Tliere  are.  even  at  this  .day, 
those  who  speak  vreat  swt  Hint;  words  of  vanity 
end  of  falsehood,  in  p»ivertii!^  the  truth  as  it  is  ia 
J' sus;  and  who  enii  loy  themsf  Ivt  «,  in  all  the  arts 
ot  fi  e;js  and  diceit,in  leading:  capiive  unwary 
souls.     The  Lord  has,  in  ioriner  a^es,  admiiiisttr- 


SS2  REMARKS,  &c.       . 

ed  seasonable  checks,  to  the  influence  of  such 
unprincipled  heietick3,by  accomplishing  that  pro- 
njise,  "vVhen  t-rror  cometh  in  like  a  flood,  the  spi- 
rit of  J  'hovah  will  lift  up  a  standard  against  him." 
This  standard  has  consisted,  and  must  still  con- 
sist, in  the  agency  employed,  by  his  faithful  he- 
ralds, in  defecting  the  falsehoods,  and  rectifying 
the  niistakts, of  the  grand  propatj:ators  of  error 
and  delusion.  In  the  very  fact,  therefore,  that  the 
church  is,  in  ou-v  own  day,  infested  with  enemies 
to  all  righteousness,  the  watchmen  upon  Zion's 
avails,  are  called  out,  to  buckle  on  their  armour, 
arid  to  bf'come  as  iron  pillars,  and  a?  brazen  walls, 
in  the  defence,  and  vindicatiori  of  precious  truth; 
they  are  calh-d  forth,  to  contend  earnestly  for  the 
faith,  that  was  once  delivered  to  the  saints- 
These  remarks  have  beet^  elicited  at  present,  by 
Rev.  Mr.  Walker  calling  upon  me,  to  furnish,  to 
the  christian  world,  a  correction  of  sucli  mislate- 
ments  of  facts,  as  might  have  occured  to  my  notice, 
in  a  rect-nt  publication, entitled  'the  substance  of  a 
debate  &c.  stating,  at  the  same  time,  that  he  had 
undertaken  to  correct  the  errors  of  doctrine  con- 
tained in  that  work,  and  also  a  number  of  the 
statements  there  made  of  facts,  in  a  publication 
now  in  the  press,  and  in  as  much  as  it  has  ordi- 
narily required,  the  combined  testimony  of  two 
or  thr*:'e  witnesses,  to  convict  a  criminal  at  the 
bar  of  justice,  he  therefore  requested  for  truth's 
6ake,  wfiich  had  been  so  audaciously  murdered, 
in  the  above  publication,  to  ttirnisha  statement,  a 
plain,  unvarnished  statement  of  the  truth,  in  op- 
position to  the  falsehoods,  colour  ngs  and  perver- 
sion of  the  substance  ^c.  As  my  attemion  was 
particularly  drawn  on  tlic  occasion  of  tliat  deb  ite, 
and  my  name  particularly  implicated  in  the  pub- 


REMARKS,  &c.  aSS 

licafion  of  its  Pubsfance,  Itl.e  nnore  readily  stepped 
forward,  to  vindic  ite  the  trutli.  in  bfarii.g  testi- 
m  Miy  to  her  sacred  clvims,  in  opposition  to  the 
propagation  of  falscho  )ds  tlie  niost  nuked  and 
gros-!." However,  to  pursue  Mr.  Campbell  through 
all  his  mcanderin.ifs — to  iiet*  ct  h-m  in  all  his  mis- 
stiitements  of  facts,  ai  d  to  correct  him  in  all  his 
aberrations,  from  scriptural  principle,  would  be 
almost  an  endless  underlakin?.  O  e  mii^ht  as 
v^ell  undertake,  to  trace  out  tie  meanderine;s  of, 
a  wandering  Arab,  in  order  to  prove  that  he  did 
not  always  tread  in  a  high  way;  or  detect  all  his 
particular  acts,  to  prove  him  an  uricultivated  sa- 
vage. The  task  in  either  case,  would  be  endless; 
but  it  is  unnecessary.  Once  prove  that  an  author 
is  capable  of  misrepresenting  facts,  and  of  main- 
taining urscriplural  principle-^,  arid  you  have  left 
his  f  brie,  as  Sampson  of  old,  h  ft  tie  Das;on 
house  of  the  V\\\V\»\\nes,  wHhoul  its  pillars.  This 
in  part,  I  trust  you  will  find  accomplislied,  by  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Walker,  in  relation  to  the  widely  circu- 
lated, and  herculean  performance  of  Alexander 
Campb.  ll's — To  complete  the  catiistrophy,  it  re- 
mains for  me,  by  a  few  statements,  to  evince  eith- 
er the  I'capacity  cr  ind'spo-ifion  of  Mi-.  C.  to 
Eta'e  the  truth.  This  being  done,  we  trust  Mr. 
Campbell's  wtiole  scheme  will,  as  we  are  convinc'd 
it  ought,  to  appear,  but  the  baseless  fabrick  of  a 
vi-ion,  vvithoul  a  wreck  behind.  I  ird'  ed  feel 
thit  my  task  is  a  pan.ful  one.  In  dettcting  a 
nmn's  misstalemeni  of  tacts,  the  subject  of  ciili- 
ci-m,  is  necessarily  held  up  to  soe-eiy,  :  s  an  ob- 
ject ( f  abhorrence.  On  this  snme  acco;  nt,  the 
critic  becomes  awtnlly  re-pon^  be.  It  w. uid  no 
d')ub!  be  higlily  de«ir  ;ble,  were  iliere  no  e  in  fo- 
ciety    go  enltagued  with   the  Prince  of  darkness, 


234  ITEMARKS,  Sic. 

as  to  give  occasion,  for  thpir ''ellow  creafures,  at 
any  time,  to  engage  in  thr-  exerci-e  of  siicli  an 
office.  But  this  we  are  scarce!}'  authorised  to  ex- 
pect; offences  must  conne.  And  when  offence  is 
given  on  the  ground  of  false'iood,  a  banner  must 
be  displayed  on  the  part  of  truth.  It  is  noivherc 
predicted  of  truth,  as  it  is  of  iniquity,  that  as  a- 
sfiamed  it  shall  hide  its  head.  It  does  not  indeed 
properly  belong  to  truth,  nor  its  advocate,  to  aim 
especially  for  tfie  last  word.  The  heretick  more, 
ffr  quenily  seeks  for  this,  because  he  has  no  other 
ground,  on  which,  he  can  liope  to  gain  the  ascen- 
dency over  fiis  antagonist,  than  that  of  speaking 
much,  or  speaking  the  la«t.  The  advocate  of 
truth, on  the  other  hand,  havi-g  honestly  and  can- 
didly, stated  the  truth,  on  whatever  «ubject  he  is 
called  to  aj  pear,  more  generally  leaves  the  fur- 
ther issue  of  the  c^se,  in  the  hands  of  that  God, 
whose  blessing  alone,  can,  in  any  case,  give  genu- 
ine success. 

Bat  to  proceed,  Mr.  Campbell  has  stated,  in 
the  frontal  pige  of  hi-  book,  that  Ue  "had  previous 
to  his  publication,  made  application  to  me,  for  a 
copy  nf  the  rute>5  to  be  observed  during  the  de- 
bate, but  without  effect.''  It  isalre^dy  bf^fore  the 
public,  that  this  statement  is  incorrect.  It  has 
been  stated  and  cannot  be  disproved,  that  f  never 
saw,  nor  mt  t  with  any  person,  on  the  occasion  of 
Buch  a  dema'  d. 

It  has  also  been  stated,- and  cannot  be  disprov- 
ed, that  a  ff'W  lines  left  at  my  house,  \\hen  1  was 
80  miles  from  hom'-,  wa-s  not  an  applic  ition  lor 
the  copy  but  f>r  th«'  original  draft  '  f  s.iid  rules. 

Mr.  C.  then  proceed-  t^  -^late  th^  substance 
of  them  from  rernllec'ion.  There  is  howver,  a 
true  copy  of  ibeoe  rales  (the  originul  of  whicfi 

» 


REMARKS  &c..  235 

wltTi  Mr.  Cptn))1->fir>i  own  fiennfure  fffiyrl,  cnn 
at  any  t'nn'  hf  c\!iil)iie<!.)  iri^eilcd  in  paiie  4  of 
this  \o!nniP.  Tlie  rettdcr  is  cn'reated  in  coir:parc 
Mr.  Canipbell's  siibstarc«%  wild  the  true  copy, 
that  he  may,  ihe  moie  decidedly  f'elerniiiie,  low 
much  depi  ndei  re,  he  i-;  s;  ft ,  in  placitg  on  Mr. 
Ca rnpbe  11 's  rero/Zec/Jons,  (which  is  the  {;ref»t  grontid 
of  his  narrative,)  iri  other  ptatejt  ente.  On  a  fair 
conipp.rison,  it  ums\  be  peictived,  by  tl  e  candid 
and  judicious  reader,  that  some  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's rules,  both  as  to  substance  and  form,  are  an 
ent're  forg:ery. 

But  ae.'iin,  in  Mr.  Campbell's  statements  of  what 
he  calls  fact?,  coripccted  with  tlie  debate,  in  the 
5ih  pagt,we  mc-f  with  the  followina:  words ;  "The 
Debate  was  dosed  hy  my?e!f,  but  after  I  sat  down, 
Mr.  Samuel  Finrily,  by  an  injudicious,  and  un- 
becomit  g  uddress,  contr;iry  to  the  rules  by  which 
he,  as  one  of  the  Moderntnrs,  should  have  been 
governed,  produced  an  unpleasant  excitement  in 
the  corieregation.  But  as  the  public,  obviously 
and  <mphaiically  expressed  their  disapf)rohation 
of  if,  I  feel  no  desire  by  a  minute  statement  to  per- 
petuate the  remenibr;ince  of  it."  Now',  whether 
Mr.  Canipbell  has,  in  tlii«  statement,  spoken  the 
truth  or  not,  *ill  be  submitted  to  the  r'  ader,  after 
I  have  f;iven  a  brief  narrati\e  of  the  trarsaction, 
to  which  he  here  allude^.  Mr.  C.  has  said  thai  he 
had  closed  the  debate,  previous  to  Mr.  Findley's 
address, of  which  he  com}  laii  s;  and  in  the  same 
sentence,  he  states,  that  <aid  add  ess  was  contra- 
ry to  the  rule*,  bv  which  le,  as  a  Moderator, 
Fhould  have  been  governed.  The  coi  troversy 
for  which  these  rule-  were  f.rmed,  it  appears, was 
C'T' -e.l.  They  had  coti<eqne'.'ly  lived  their  day. 
How  then  could   Mr.  Findley's   uddrcss    violate 


23G  EF/vIARKS&c. 

them?  Prnjfrader  do  reconcile  this  if  jou  can, 
B'li  to  be  more  e\.  lict,  it  is  fire'y  ndii'itt*  d  that 
Mr.  F.  d  (1  tjive  nns.dore^s  at  tic  c]o?e  ol  tin  con- 
tiovfr-^^y.  What  tlieu  was  the  r^^nson,  ai  d  what 
(he  substf  tic<'  <t  that  fuldse.-s?  The-e  enquiries 
shall  he  a'  svvered  as  briefly  as  p(  s^ibie.  If  it  be 
found  that  his  rp;.son  for  givina;  it  was  good,  ar.d 
th.'tt  the  plotter  of  it  was  importnnt;  there  c(  rttiin- 
ly  could  be  no  suffi-cient  cause  for  ui  pleasant  ex- 
cil<'m(  nt  at  the  lime,  nor  yet  for  censorious  re- 
flections afterwards. 

1st:  Then  the  reason  <{  myaddress,  is  to  be 
found  in  what,  I  truly  conceived  to  be  irijudicioiis  & 
uibecoM  ing  &  sotjiethre^  at  least  ten  d^  grees  worse 
than  either,  in  Mr.  Cs.  closing  addres.  Leav- 
ing his  siibjeci  of  debate  altogether,  he  tmdeitock 
to  haranuiie  thH  audience,  upon  the  unf.iir  man- 
agement of  his  opponents;  as  displayed  ihrotjgh- 
out  the  course  of  the  d(  bate.  He  even  a^^serted 
that  I  htid  ii-^ed  partiality  ir»  the  matter  of  order, 
and  had  etsdeavoured  to  keep  him  under  urdue 
restraint;  &  reflected  moreover  that  the  judges  had 
disappointed  hinj,  in  bunging  the  subj.  ct  to  a  has- 
ty close;  and  tha»  at  this  he  was  the  more  aston- 
isht^d,  seeing  the  regulations  made  provi  ion  for 
continuing  from  day  to  d  y;  with  these  re  flee 
tiofts  Mr.  Canipell  coriclnded  his  last  fiddress. 
Previous  to  tliis  unexprct<  d  aid  unprt  ced*  nt  har- 
angue; the  thought  «f  .speakint;  in  the  w  yif  ad- 
dressini:  tlie  audiet  ce,  had  rot  en'aied  my  niird- — 
Upon  Mr.  Campell's  conclud  ng  I  b'  koned  to  the 
auiiiencf  .  Thfre  was  the  ij.o^i  j  rcjfoui.d  aiientUia 
g  ven.  I  pr  ceeded  then  to  dt'livt^r  an  addres--,  the 
substance  of  wh'ch  as  I  u-derstHid,  »s  a're.rdy  in-' 
ee- ted,  in  page  16,  17  18,  of  tln>work— H  .v.ng' 
ciobcd  my  addres.-,  I  look  my  leave  of  the  i»udiencc  " 


REMARKS  4'c.  237 

as  respedably  as  possible,  ami  withdrew.  "So  far 
88  any  niarks  of  atiettion,  came  under  my  notice 
upon  mydescei  dinp;  the  staa'*',  tliey  were  •  nlire 
h  of  tl,e  careFsinfTliind.  My  friends,  at  least  did 
rot  discoAer  any  mortification,  at  my  l.avint  acted 
an  injudicious  aid  unbeconiMig  pjirt;  and  I  bad 
the  opinion  of  s^on-e  to  the  \ery  rev«  rse,  who  were 
as  capable  of  judging-,  cither  on  a  question  of  or- 
deror  merit,  asMr.  C.  orany  cf  bis  friends. 

Another  instnnce  of  Mr.  Campell's  indisposition 
or  incapacity,  to  statr  the  truth,  y<  u  have  in  a 
note  appended  to  the  69th  page  of  his  book— He 
there  calls  Mr.  F.  tie  abettor  p.nd  second,  of  Mr. 
W.  We  have  only  to  sny,  that  Mr.Findley  ap- 
peared in  no  such  character.  No,  he  appeared  on 
that  occasion,  as  free  •  f  person^  obligation  to  se- 
cond,or  abett  Mr.V\  .  as  Mr.  C— ;&  nothine  but  the 
exercise  of  that  prerogative,  which  he  reed  from 
the  band  of  Mr.  Campbell  himself,to  defend  truth, 
and  good  order,  to  the  iisupportible  chagrine  of 
Mr.  C:.mpt IPs  lawless  spirit,  could  have ^t^duced 
him,  [Mr.  C]  groundlessly  to  apply  these  con- 
temptible  epithets. 

In  the  same  pa-e  he  complains  that  Mr.  F.  had 
made  a  proposition  soor  er  than  he  tiad  anticipated 
to  bring  the  subject  under  discussion  to  a  close.  It 
IS  utterly  dei.ied  that  Mr.  F.  made  any  such  prop, 
ositi.^n  Jit  that  tine,  but  with  the  he;.riy  concur- 
rence  of  his  associ:,te  judge.  Now  is  it  honest?  is 
It  candid?toaitribute  a  decision  that  wa^^  «  qually 
concurred  in.  by  eacf.  of  the  judges  acting  on  tl  e 
occasiort,  to  tie  ut;fair  interposition  of  an  individ- 
ual.  Sqchhnw.ver  is  the  honesty  and  such  the 
candour  of  our  author. 

Wc  have  a  like  instance  of  disingenuity,  in  the 
7b th  p.  of  his  book.    His  words  are,  "Here  I  was 


2B8  REMARKS  >c. 

iriternjpted  by  Mr.  F.  who  objected  (othis  mode  of 
proceding.  He  said  that  as  the  obj»-ct  of  this 
njeetiiitr,w:is  the  t^dificatiof,  ofthe  public,  be  could 
not  p(  rcuve  bow  the  as-kmo;  and  an>;werit)g  of 
que-ti"n«  could  promote  their ediHcaliori,be  desire 
th.it  ue  should  procefd  in  sr<Tr^^^  why  more  condu- 
cive to  their  ed  ficsition.  To  which  I  replied — 
Mr.  F.  ynu  are  doubtless  an  advocate  for  tie  VVest- 
Diin-^ler  creed  and  ciitf.'chism,  and  I  presume  as 
such,  muvt  agree  with  your  bretberen,  that  the 
cat*  cheticfil  mdde  of  instruction- is  the  best,  as  we 
aren-'W  [Toceedingas  the  Westmitister  divines  di- 
rect, I  fhi:  k  you  cannot  without  a  dereliction  of 
priiicii-'l"  object.  Mr. F.  then  was  mute,  I  proceed- 
ed.'" Wh:U  magnanimity?  Wlir.t  kniiibt-hood  wa« 
d:--pl  '.yed  )\cTt.'?  Truly  when  I  read  this  p!Tt  olf 
Mr.CamcbeHV  repoi)  I  was  induced  toexcluim.  O 
(ruth  whither  hast  thou  fit  d!  O  shame,  O  thon/mr 
ofG)d&/earof  man,  whither  bast  thou  ti-d!! 
Did  Mr.  Caniftbell  think  there  vvere  none  present 
thiit  couid  or  would,  bear  tesiiuiony  to  ti!e  ti  nth,  in 
opposition  to  bis  abominable  perversion.'*  If  be 
did,  I  fissure  him  he  is  irreatiy  mist;>ken.  To  the 
audif nce  then  present,  i  apfjeal,  while  1  write 
for  the  satisfaction  ot  tho-^e,  who  have  had  no  other 
source  of  inlorinfttiori,  thun  the  ab''ve  mistate- 
ment  of  the  f  ct.  The  (ruth  is  tliis.  Mr.  Campfell 
bfid  been  stating  questions,  pr  d  makjiij  a^serritn.s, 
&  ()!using  in  e.-cli  interim,  f<-r  the  m  ;ttrr  i  Itwo, - 
ttiree,  or  four  rninule-,  untill  his  father  had  tine  to 
Vnte,  in  lull,  the  word-  lie  hid  used,  .mid  tlien 
there  was  a  ri-aoma:,  and  restating  vf  what  bf.d 
bten  slated,  to  asc  nain  t' a'  no  mistake  bad  tn- 
ken  place;  lie  staied  at  the  sane  time,  tiiat  he  was 
tf:us  particular,  with  »  view  io  publish  to  (he  w<  rJd 
the  whole  of  what  parsed   on  tht  occasion.    Ai'icr 


REMARKS  &c.  23& 

he  had  repealed  such  intervals  again  and  again, 
until  the  :mdie;,ce  became  quite  restless  and  dis- 
composed, frosii  nut  having  their  attention  occupi- 
ed.— Hndju>t  while  Mr.  C;;inpb"ll  w-s  suspending 
his  address,  in  waitins^  iipon  his  father's  iPon^scri- 
buit,'  what  he  had  said,  1  asked  him  it  he  was  done, 
he  replied  no,  it  was  his  40  ntinuies,  ;ind  he  would 
occupy  ti.eni  us  he  pleased. — I  observed  that  it  was 
his  40  minutes  to  speak  and  argue,  it  he  h.:d  any 
thing  to  say,  but  it  was  not  his  time  to  waste;  that 
the  public  weie  waiting  for  edification;  but  that 
they  would  njj\  be  disponed  to  wait  upon,  his  vvri- , 
tingabook.  Thi«  closed  the  inteiview  between' 
Mr.  C.  and  myself.  He  progress(  d  in  the  d-  bate, 
and  I,  of  cour,se,  reiTi;iii.ed  mute.  I  had  succeeurd 
in  callifig  him  to  order,  vrbich  was  my  object  ia 
speaking. 

See  again  Pnge  99,  to  the  same  etfecr.  His 
words  are: — "Mr.  F.  said  that  he  and  his  associ- 
ate M  )der.itor  ti)ought  that  enough  liad  been  said 
on  the  Covenants,  &c."  Now  I  have  to  inform  Mr. 
Campbell,  and  the  public,  that  the  word  covenant 
or  covenants,  did  not  escnpe  from  my  hps  at  the. 
t'me;  nor  was  it  the  subject  of  remark — our  opi- 
nion respected  the  controversy  on  tl  e  subjt-ct  of 
baptism.  Mr.  C.  may  perhaps,  at  this,  wipe  his 
mout h, and  say,  is  it  not  a  little  one. ^  Be  it  so.  It 
is  sufficient  to  discover  his  disinclin;ition  cr  in* 
capacity  at  any  time,  vvheie  fact  is  concerned,  to 
State  the  truth. 

For  anothf  r  aberration  of  a  similar  kind,  wc 
invite  the  reader's  attention  to  p.  118  if  his  book  on 
the  debate  &c.  Tnere  he  tells  you  that  Mr.  Und- 
ley  asked  the  name  of  the  author  of  the  book, 
which  he  held  in  bis  hand — stri.nge  indeed!  that 
Mr.  Findley  should  have  asked  the  uanie  of  an  au- 


240  REMARKS  &c. 

thor,  whose  name  lieknevva's  well  as  Mr.  C. — No, 
no;  thf  i^'oild  IS  dvt'ud  \o  prove,  (except  on  the 
g  >'ui.d  of  perjury,)  that  Mr.  F.  said  a  siiigJo 
syll.ibl.- loMr.  C.  in  his  c(  urse  <  t ■^eadirl^,  until 
Ije  hitd  inadi^  his  lotroductoiy  letnr^rks,  and  pass- 
ed a  ful.-ome  edioary  upon  his  socini;in  friend,  R. 
RibMtson,  and  until  he  had  reud  from  pajs^e  185, 
of  his  hi-tory,  the  folhving  sentence:  ''The  Afri- 
can  Fathers  were  the  least  ot  all  others,  tinc- 
tured with  the  true  spirit  of  the  suhlime  reli- 
gion of  Jesus.  Si.ives  themselve?,  they  never 
thouLiht  c.f  christian  liberty:  and  even  Cyprian 
hin)S(lf,  the  ^uide  of  the  rest,  durst  not  '  think 
for  himself."  In  opposition  to  the  long  train 
of  forged  rant  which  Mr.  C.  has  in  his^  book, 
I  then  called  him  to  order,  stating  that  the  rules 
by  which  my  juiisdic.tion  on  the  occa^/lon  was  to 
be  goverm  d,  absclu;ely  prohibited  all  diminutive 
or  di-respectful  personal  allusions — see  rule  3rd.  ♦ 
and  that  if  this  rule  had  any  meaning  in  it,  he 
was  cert;iinly  transgressing  it.  1  stated  that  I 
a{)preh('ii(Ief),  that  by  this  rule,  I  was  as 
much  bound  to  protect  the  chsr-.uter  of  the  de;.d 
as  of  the  livitig,  against  personal  and  ground- 
less iiivec  tive;  yea  more  so,  for  their  character 
was  submitted  to  our  trust,  as  a  kind  of  st-crcd 
dsposile.  They  were  not  alive  to  defend  it 
themselves.  lu  this  respect  tliey  had  a  claim  up- 
on us,  that  living  characters  had  not.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's reply  was,  ''Atn  I  not  to  be'  permilt(  d  to 
re;  d  hi>tory  as  well  as  my  antagonist.'"'  You 
are  sir,  said  I,  at  liberty  to  rrad  history. —  What- 
ever of  hir^rory  you  can  find  in  R.  bertson,  rra- 
ny  wh(  re  else;  you  are  at  liberty  to  read  it, but 
sir,  you  are  not  at  liberty  either  to  sp«  ak  or 
reud  siaiidtr.     Mr.  C.  then    exclainicd,    with  a 


REMARKS,  &c.  ^41 

kind  of  frothy  sneering,  peculiar  to  him- 
self: ''R'bettson,  an  inhabitant  of  iLe  Holy  land, 
where  the  holy  league  and  covenant  ^as,  is  re- 
jected!' 

Whether  he  intended,  by  such  a  sneer,  to  cast 
contempt  upon  the  Martyrs  of  Jpsus  or  not,  I  dare 
not  say.  The  remark,  however,  as  having  this 
bearing,  made  my  feelings  recoil. 
•  After  Mr,  C.  had  then  bandied  the  public  for 
some  time,  in  the  mo?t  unorderly  manner,  and  af- 
ter fo  me  bfipiist  frienflg  had  discovered  their  im- 
p-itieiice  to  b'^ar  up  their  sinking  ship,  by  vocife- 
rr^tinghire,  and  therf,  throagh  the  assembly,  rco<i 
read\i  called  agau)  to  order,  and  observed  that 
hst  some  miglit  suspect  me  for  wishing  to  keep 
something,  that  might  have  the  semblance  of  rea- 
son, and  evidence,  out  of  view,  I  would  give  Mr. 
C.  special  privilege  to  read,  from  his  socinian 
friend,  as  nuich  as  he  pleased;  but  I  would  advise 
the  audience  to  obtain,  and  readat  their  leisure, 
John  P,  Campell's  review  of  Robertson's  History, 
and  also  Cave's  lives  of  t\>e  Fathers,  that  hereby 
they  would  find  the^l^elves  fortified  against  the 
slanders  aid  misrepresentations  of  the  author 
now  read.  Upon  this  intimation  Mr.  C.  proceeded 
to  read  a  f^vv,.  but  very  few  passages,  from  his 
highly  favorite  historian.  I  am  sorry  to  say,  or 
even  -to  think,  but  so  it  is,  as  fact  would  not  ad- 
mit of  Mr.  CampbelTs  venting  that  strain  of  accu- 
sation against  me,  which  the  cravings  of  his  ve- 
n.mous  nature  required,  wherever  he  has  the 
slightest  occasion  to  foist  in  my  name,  in  his 
rancorous  publication,  he  has  connected  with  it, 
a  forgery  of  his  own,  to  make  it  appear,  as  he 
thouo^ht,  sufficiently  black. 

In  the  124ih  page,  we  have  another  instance  of 
W 


'M2  REMARKS,  &c. 

the  same  kind. — He  there  states,  that  Mr.  F.  at 
the  instance  of  Mr.  Walker,  wished  the  dtbate  to 
be  closed  i)y  once  speaking  on  eftch  side.  The 
stateoient,  is  obviously  intended  to  bias  the  pub- 
lic, with  the  apprehension,  that  Mr.  Walker  was 
exhausted  or  tired,  with  his  part  of  the  contro- 
versy. Now  if  Mr.  Walker  will  say,  with  Mr.  C. 
that  he  consulted  me  to  the  above  efi[Vct;  I  will 
then  ae:ree  to  give  a  libel  upon  myself,  in  respect 
to  every  instarxe,  in  which,  I  huve  correced  Mr. 
Campbell's  misrepresentations.  No,  No.  There 
ivas  no  such  consiiliation  on  the  part  of  Mr.  W. 
He  was  indeed  opposed  to  coming  to  a  close  as 
soon  as  he  did. — But  during  the  inttrmission  of 
which  Mr.  C.  speaks,  I  mentioned  to  Mr.  Walk- 
er, that  he  must  either  choose  arolhtr  judge  or 
they  mu^t  adopt  some  measures',  by  which  they 
could  draw  to  a  close,  that  evening;  my  circum- 
stances at  home,  being  such,  that  I  couki  remain 
no  longer  with  them.  The  mea>^Ui'':s  employed 
to  bring  it  to  a  close  were  altogether'  of  my  own 
projecting,  and  occasor.ed  by  family  and  congra- 
tional  circumstance.^.  Instead  of  Mr.  Walker  giv- 
ing out  in  the  controversy,  as  Mr  C.  at  difl'erent 
times,  fondly  insinuiitcs;  it  was  the  decided  opi- 
nion, of  all  I  heard  speak  of  th^irperformance, 
that  Mr.  Walker  did  much  better,  and  Mr.  Camp- 
bell much  worse,  tlie  second  day,  than  the  first, — 
If  Mr.  Walker  had  cny  inward  fears,  1  have  only 
to  say,  I  never  heard  bin),  ncr  any  person  for  him, 
express  them. 

Having  thus  far,  proceeded  to  acquit  my  con- 
science of  an  oblij^ation  to  the  public,  in  the  cause 
of  slandered  truth,  I  commit  and  leave  the 
issue,  in  the  hand  of  that  God,  who  is  in  every 
place,  at  all  times,  beholding  the  evil  and  the 
good.— He  is  the  God  of  truth;  and  I  know  he 


REMARKS  Sf'c.  24S 

will,  in  his  own  lime,  reduce  to  silence  every 
lying  lip. — Thet  his  will  may  be  done  in  all  things 
pertaining  to  his  own  glory  and  the  interests  of 
truth,  is  the  sincere  prayer  of  ycur  ser\aiit  for 
Jesus'  sake. 

SAMUEL  FINDLEY. 


A  lu^TTE12l 


TO 


Dr.    SAMUEL   RALSTON, 

Minister  of  the   Gospel,  in  the  Congregation  cf 
Mmgo  creek  and  Williamsport. 


BY  JOHN  WALKER, 

Pastor  of  the  associate  Congregafion  of  Unity   and 
Mountpleasant,   Ohio. 

Let  the  righteous  smite  me;  it  shall  be  a  kindness: 
and  let  him  reprove  me;  it  shall  be  an  excellent  oil' 
which  shall  not  break  my  head.     Psal.  141.  5. 


246  A  LETTER. 

Rev.  Sir, 

While  we  agree  on  the  subject  of  BaptisTn  in  ge-- 
neral,  I  am  sorry  to  find  a  difference  of  sentiment, 
prevailing  in  any  respect,  on  a  subject  so  im- 
portant. Baptists  may  be  disposed  to  take  the 
same  cdvantage  of  these  disputations,  that  infidels 
take  of  those  disputes  that  divide  the  christian  world, 
i.e.  to  deriy  the  whole  system.  Baptists  shou!d,how- 
ever,  rftmember  that  among  themselves  they  are 
not  agreed,  for  besides  all  the  different  sects,  that 
are  denominated  baptist  Mr.  Campbell,  one  of 
their  late  writers,  has  devised  a  plan  lor  the  sup- 
portof  their  hilling  system,  chiefly  out  of  his  ow'n 
brain,  a  plan  unknown  to  the  ApovStles  or  their 
successors — to  Dr  Gill  or  Mr.  Booth.  And  while 
his  system  possesses  an  authority  no  higher  than 
himself,  yet  it  differs  as  much  from  other  baptist 
writer?,  as  if  tlie  propositions  they  defended  had 
been  entirely  different. 

I;i  defence  of  publick  disputes,  it  appears 
scarcely  necessary  that  I  should  make  any  obser- 
vations. Whatever  were  your  sentimesits  when 
you  first  heard  of  the  dispute,  between  Mr.  Cann.p- 
bell  and  myself,  you  certaiidy  now  justify  our 
conduct:  you  tiave  not  only  disputed  with  Mr. 
C.  but  when  he  made  an  attempt  to  reply,  you 
answered.  Your  dispute  w^ith  Mr.  C.  is  still  more 
publick  than  mine  wa«;  the  only  difference  is  that 
you  disputed  on  paper,  in  ilie  absence  of  your  op- 
ponent, while  I  contended  in  his  presence.  Our 
mf-thods  differ;  yet  sir,  it  mu^t  be  conced<°d  that 
by  the  method  adopted  by  Mr.  C.  and  myself,  it 
was  most  probable  the  subject  would  receive  the 
mo^t  fair  and  full  mvestigation. 

A  writer  gives  form  to  the  ararument  he  oppo- 
ses, but  in  disputation  viva    voce^  each  side  for 


A  LETTER.  24T 

themselves,  forms  the  argument,  and  to  it,  in  that 
shape,  the  reply  must  be  ^iven.  This  done  ih 
the  presence  ol'  the  publick,  carnesa  cotiviction 
wUh  it,  which  no  paper  can  atfoid:  where  human 
passions,  or  ill  nature  is  mix^d  with  surh  dispu- 
tatlorjs,  they  are  not  only  unprofitable,  but  df^r:id- 
ing.  But  I  can  assure  you,  in  our  public  dispute, 
tliere  was  nothing  even  like  wraih,  and  had  his 
book  been  a  true  portrait  of  that  dispute,  there 
would  have  been  no  necessity  for  n  e  ever  to 
have  addressed  any  thing  to  the   public,  on  paper. 

To  the  plan  of  disputing  yotj  have  adopted,  I 
also  give  my  consent.  I  now  adopt  the  same,  yet 
would  always  prefer  the  formfT where  if  can  be 
obtained.  T^ie  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  g've 
me  the  example  im  Athens;  Acts  17.  17.  also  with 
Peter.  Gal.  2.  19.  To  this  plan  also  acceded  our 
reforming  forefather.'*,  such  as  Kf\ox,  Luther,  Cal- 
vin, Zuinglius  anrl  others,  and  indeed  some  of 
their  opponents  were  but  a  small  dcgiee  sounder 
in  the  faith  than  Mr.  C. 

I  have  a  cloud  of  witnesses  in  my  favor:  I  think 
the  church  was  much  editifd,  by  the  explicit,  and 
publick  manner  the  reformers'  defended  truth.  I 
could  wish  the  same  atl<;mpts  wer*^  irorc  frequT.t. 
For  my  own  part,  I  am  fuily  rewa'nled  for  ail  my 
toil  in  that  debate,  not  0T)ly  by  the  accession  *to 
the  church,  which  succeeded  if,  but  also  by  the 
spirit  of  inquiry  which  it  produced,  which  to 
many,  I  hope,  issued  in  ars  understanding  of  the 
truth. 

Ditferent  from  our  reforming  predece?sor*5,  we 
afford  error  a  rest  too  quiet  an  1  peaceful  in  the 
churchr  we  are  not  valimt  for  the  truth  upon  the 
earth.  While  peace  is  ihe  general  l.uigui»ge  of 
the  church,  we,  coward-like,  statid  disarmed  aod 


248  A  LETTER. 

witness  the  fidvance  of  error,  and    the  con?equent 
decny  of  truth. 

I  slialj  row,  pir,  eiideavoiir  briefly,  jet  plainly, 
to  state  tlie  lefidirg  doctrines,  in  your  letters, 
Hbich  I  cannot  snbscrib*'. 

Tt  e  first  of  them  is  jour  view  of  the  covenant 
of  circumcitiion.  You  appear  to  deny  that  this 
covenant  was  a  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of 
grace.  You  suppo^^e  that  n\y  assumption  of  this 
principle  in  the  early  etage  of  the  debate,  compell- 
ed me  to  support  it,  through  the  [tublick  disputa- 
tion. But  lean  a?sure  you,  sir,  that  I  assumed 
no  principle  in  any  stage  of  the  controversy  but 
tho«e  which  were  the  rus^ult  of  deliberate  consid- 
ertioM.     I  therefore  again    declare 

That  the  covenant  of  circvmcision  u^as  a  dispen- 
saiion   of  ike  covenant  of  grace. 

When  I  find  any  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  dispensed  in  the  form  of  covenant,  1 
thought  myself  justifiable  in  calling  such  dispen- 
sation, a  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grnce,  be- 
cause the  blessings  di.-pens<d  belong  to  that  cov- 
enant blune.  There  are  no  blessings  in  the  cov- 
enant of  grace,  but  may  be  considered  as  the  prop  - 
erty  of  the  church.  Now,  sir,  if  I  can  prove  tha  t 
any  promise  mtlde  to  Christ  the  Head,  from  all 
eternity,  in  the  covenant  of  grnce,  "was  reve;iled 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  then  it  will  fol- 
low,that  at  least  so  far  the  covenant  of  circumcision, 
was  a  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  But 
this  is  pr<ved,Psal.  89  35  36,  37.  0<xc  have 
I  svAOM.  by  my  holiness,  thai  I  will  i  ol  lie  unto 
D.ivid.  Hi-  £e«-d  shall  endure  forever,  ui.d  his 
throne  as  the  sun  before  mc.  It  shall  be  eslab- 
lishel  A-rever  ps  the  moon;  and  as  a  faithful  wit- 
ness m  Heaven.'     Bui  tins    proinibe   is  found   in 


A  LETTER.  24» 

the  covenant  of  circumcisign,  Gen.  11.  9.  'And  I 
will  establish  my  covenant  between  thee,  and 
Hie,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generalioas 
for  an  evt-rlaating  covenant."  The  persons  to 
ivhonri  the  promises  refer  are  the  santie,  Abraham's 
truesteA:  These  were  oleo  the  seed  of  Christ.  Gal. 
S,  29.  ^'If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
seed."  Where  then  is  the  absurdity  of  saying 
that  the  one  was  a  dispensation  of  the  other,  when 
they  dispense  the  san;e  blessings,  to  the  same 
heirs. 

You  object  1st,  'As  circumcission  was  the  seal 
*which  God  himself,  affixed  to  that  covenant,  and  as 
'aseal,  the  moment  it  is  affixed,  gives  the  persons  on 
'whose  belialf  the  covenant  was  made,  all  the  advan- 
'tage*  therein  contained:  it  follows  by  inevitable  con- 
'sequence,  that  if  that  covenant  was  the  covenant  of 
'grace,  then  every  circumcised  person  must  be 
'saved;  and  if  baptism  is  come  in  the  room  of  circum- 
'cision,  that  every  baptised  person,  must  be  saved 
•also.' 

1  reply,  1st,  That  you  will  certainly  consider  that 
the  Lord's  s-upper  is  a  seal  of  the  cuvenaot  of 
grace:  wid  3 on  fiOw  admit  your  dwn  inferencer  'It 
follows  by  inevitable  cons(  cjuetice,'  that  every  per- 
son cdmitte,*  into  the  full  ci  nunuriion  ot  the  Chuich, 
must  be  iraved.'  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  see  any 
difference  in  ihe  premises.  The  conclusion  must  be 
the  same* 
2nd.  [  have  shown.in  the  preceeiling  work,tbat  there 


^VVa'^  flie  Doctor  aware  ct  ti>i>.  difficulty  in  his  sys- 
tem.? Or,  will  he  deny  that  the  Lord's  supper  is  a 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  ^race.  or  in  other  Vurds,  that 
there  are  no  seals  to  the  rnvenant  of  grace.'^  The 
J.ord's  Pupper  is  as  truly  'nffixed  h\  God  himself,  as 
circumcision  or  baptism:  are  till  members  in  the  full 
fiomamnion  of  the  church  'saved.^' 


250  A  LETTER. 

is  a  difference  between  affix-ng  a  seal  to  a  covenant, 
and  discliai{>;ing  the  duties  of  »lie  same.  In  baptism 
or  t'le  Lord's  supper,  tb.e  spal  Is  affixed,  but  by  a  life 
of  conformity  to  the  law  of  God,  we  can  alone  dis- 
charge tie  duties  of  it. 

3rd.  The  utmost  that .  can  be  inferred  from  the 
circumstance  of  a  person  beinji;  baptised,  is,  that  they 
are  under  the  laws  of  Christ's  lions*?,  and  entitled  to 
all  its  visible  privileges.  The  simple  truth  appears 
to  be;  that  there  js  a  visible  relation  existing 
between  Chri?t  and  all  the  members  of  the  visi- 
ble church, and  that  they  are  entitled  to  all  the  ex-. 
tfrnal  privileges  of  the  church,  so  long  as  they 
conform  to  her  visible  laws. 

Y  u,  however,  observe  in  the  page  Inst  cited, 
*'But  what  is  on  exu-rnal  rehi'ion  to  a  covenant  } 
Is  it  not  in  other  word^  lo  bf  out  of  a  cwenant?" 
Permit  me.  sir,  to  answrr  your  query;  T.iat  to  be 
externally  rehtied  to  a  covenant,  IS  to  be  an  ex- 
ternal member  of  it;  HJ^^^  not  in  othor  words  "to  be 
out  of  a  covenant."  Wh;,!  i>*  the  church  on  earth, 
if  she  is  notd  visible  body,  p^sse-m^  external  pri- 
vileges, and  under  a  vi^ihlt,  huv?  In  order  that 
any  of  tlese  external  benefit-  should  be,  in  reality, 
pr-  fitable,  I  grant  th;.t  it  is  necessaty  they  should 
be  inwf-nily  lipp'ied,  or  in  other  words  that  there 
sliould  be  soir»ethu)g  more  than  an  external  rela- 
tion— This  forms  a  visible  title  to  invisible  ben- 
efits. 

W!iat  inward  or  spiritual  bles.-insid'T  s  the  church 
on  e-  rth  enJMy.  wliich  is  not  first  visible  and  ex- 
ternal. Even  fi  ith,  a  spiritual  gift  by  which  we 
enjoy  all  other?,  come*  by  an  exierual  ordinance. 
*^By  hearing,  ;^rd  hesritg  by  the  word  ofG)d." 
Ro'ir-.  10,  17.  Hence  v^herp  tMs  extornal  dispjuy  of 
the  gospei  is  not,  we  have  no  divine  warraDt  to  b^- 


A  LETTER.  ^bl 

lieve  that  spiritual  blessings  exist.  The  scripture 
forbids  the  hope.     Pr^v.  29  15. 

Ten  children  may  ha\ean  equal  right  in  a  will; 
five  through  profligfxy-may  never  inherit  iuy  part 
of  the  estate,  will  1  ai^sert,  as  you  h;ive  don*-,  that 
in  "other  words  they  wf-re  without  a  covenai  t"  or 
will}  My  assertion  would  be  found  coritraiy  to  the 
fact:  the  instrument  -igned  by  tb.e  tesfitor  would 
pronounce  me  false  •  But  the  covenant,  about 
which  we  dispute,  is  diatheke  a  will  or  testament, 
in  which  the  external  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
heirs  are  the  same:  the  legal  reason  why  they  do 
not  possess  the  inheritance  willed,  is  because, 
"they  forsake  their  own  mercies."  The  external 
standing  v{  iha  ten  virgii  s,  mentioned  in  Mat- 
thew, 25.  were  the  same.  It  wfis  not  until  Christ 
the  Bridegroom,  called  them  from  lime,  by  death, 
that  the  ditferenco  nas  discovered. 

This  doctrine,  you  have  materially  conceded; 
for  although  you  appear  unwilling  to  admit  that 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  vi^as  an  administra- 
»ion  of  the  covenant  of  grace;  yet  your  conces- 
tions  cannot  be  ture,  without  admitting  the  truth 
df  my  position,  because, 

1st.  You  call  the  covenant  of  circumcision  an 
ecclesiastical  covenant.  Now,  sir,  what  is  an  ecle- 
siastical  covenant,  but  a  covenant  of  the  church? 
and  what  else  is  the  covenant  of  grace?  Two 
parties  are  necessary,  to  form  a  covenant.  In 
this,  your  ecclesiastical  covenant,  God  must  have 
been  one  party,  and  the  church  tiie  other.  But 
we  have  no  account  of  any  ctiier  covenant  in 
which  God  and  the  church  were  parties,  besides 
the  covenant  of  grace.  The  apostle  Peter  when 
he  refers  to  the  covenant  of  circumcision  certain- 
ly, however,  refers  to  it,  as  the  covenant  of  grace. 


252  A  LETTER. 

"Ye  are  the  childrt  n  of  tliC  prophets  and  of  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fathers, 
saying  unto  Abrahr.ni,  and  in  thy  feed  shSl  hU 
the  kindreds  nl' the  e;\rth  be  ble^sf;d.'"  Acts  3.  25. 
This  passage  will  eslah.liih  the  following  things. 
Ist.  Thill  all  nations  had  an  cquti!  ii;ttre=t  in 
this  covenant.  2nd.  That  Chritl  was  tlie  alone 
medium,  tiirough  which  the  blessings  of  tlie  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  were  to  be  di!?pen^ed.  The 
apo^tlf.  P-.uI  so  commeitts  on  the  same  passp.gf, 
-  Gnl.  8.  16.  'Now  to  Abraham  &  his  seed  \\  ere  the 
promises  m.ade.  Ht>  saith  not  and  to  seeds,  as 
of  many;  but  as  of  one,  and  to  liiy  seed  vvldch  is 
Christ.'  From  the  view  taken  of  your  fcclesias- 
tical  covenant  by  Peter  and  Paul,  itise\id<:nt 
they  recognize  Ctirist  as  its  head;  the  peison, 
ti)rough  whom  all  its  blessings  are  to  be  enjoyed; 
and  a  covenant  in  Avhich  all  true  believers  have 
an  equal  ir;terest.  1  think,  sir,  you  and  I  under- 
stand a  cov(Miant  of  tLis  di«cription  to  be  the  co- 
venant of  grace;  if  not,  in  what  reirpect  dees  it 
diff-r? 

2r7ih  You  <:oncfde 'that  it  was  a  covenant  gra- 
'  ciousiy  designed  and  wisely  calculated,  as  a 
'  mean  to  an  end,  to  interest  them  in  the  blessings 
*  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  consisting  in  pardon, 
'  sanclitication  and  eternal  life.',  page  4,  By  tliis 
you  must  mean,  one  of  two  things;  either,  1st. 
th.at  this  covenant  prepared  its  sul)jec(s  for  re^- 
)eceiving  these  spiritural  blessings;  or  2pd  that 
they  were  contained  in  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision. If  you  believe  the  former;  then  your  sen- 
timent must  he  that  G' d  the  Fatlicr  did  through 
Christ,  as  federal  Head,  enter  into  two  cove- 
nants vith  the  church;  the  first  of  which  was  to 
prepare  them  for   the  latter,  the  first  contained 


A  LETTER.  253 

the  means,  the  latter  the  end;  the  fir?t '\v?.s  a^l- 
culatfd  to  iatcre^^t  ti.eni'in  tl.e  latter.  But  I  do 
not  believe  ihi^i  novel  theory  to  be  your.^;  v.-u 
must  then  bei:eve  tiial  pudo;.,  ^-anct  fic;;tio  !,  &z. 
were  dispensed  in  that  covenant.  It  full.  »' ^s, 
that  as  the  covenant  of  grac'  alone,  coiti.ii.tid 
these  blessings,  the  covenant  of  circunncijion, 
was  a  dt.>ipet!sation  of  the  covenant  of  iiace. 

3rd.  Yi>u  concfdH,  that  it  is  'undentabir,  that 
'  isif  lilts  were  intri>duced  into  that  churc;  by  cir- 
'cumciiion.'  T'l '  ciiuicii  is  a  body  h'-ly  to  'he 
L  rd,— in  inh^riianee  prepared.  Acts  20  28  Your 
CO  ice-sion  implies,  that  by  circumciriDn  they 
weie  united  to  that  body,  of  which  Christ  is  the 
Head.  Col.  1. 18.  But  themome'  t  they  were  u'.it- 
fcd  to  tfiis  body,  they  were  entitled  to  all  the  pre- 
vil^'ise?!  of  It,  as  thfy  becain<^  capable  to  receive 
the.ri,  and  bound  by  i^ll  their  kAvs.  The  righteous- 
ness of  Christ, the  foundation  of  all  these  privileg- 
es, was  -e:ded  to  Abraham  by  circumcisio!!.  Rom. 
4  1 1.  But  this  righteousness  and  all  the  blessings 
flowing  from  it,  are  tie  blessings  of  the  covenant 
of  grace.  Therefore  circumcision  was  a  sign  and 
a  seal  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  erace. 

In  a  word,  you  concede  that  "the}-  arfr-  engraft- 
ed into  the  good  olive  tree.'  paa:e  13.  le.iiiated 
by  this  ordinance,  among 'the  ossembi}  of  saint?,' 
among  a  'chosen  nation'  a'chosen  people.'  pa^e  7. 
If  so,  it  cerifiinlv  follows,  that  however  ui'profi- 
table  their  standintr  be  to  themselves,  yet  they 
are  visible  members  of  that  body,  possessing  all 
the  external  relation  and  privilfges,  (hat  saints 
do,  and  must  therefore  by  God,  be  df-alt  with,  as 
'covenafit  breakers,'  which  cw!i)d  not  br  true,  un- 
less in  some  sense,  they  had  been  in  the  covC' 
nant. 


254  A  LETTER. 

The  passage  jou  chiefly  urge  forthe  confirmatioE 
of  this  jour  opinion  is,Ronj.  3.  2/  What  advantage 
hath  the  Jew,  or  whatprufit  i^  there  of  circumci- 
sion? much  every  Avay;  chiefly,  because  that  unto 
them,  \Tere  committed  the  oracles  of  God.'  Your 
view  of  the  passage  is,  that  the  oracles  of  God 
'are  said  to  be  the  chief  advantage,  which  those 
'who  were  interested  in  that  covenant  by  circum- 
'cision,  derived  from  it;  and  until  it  is  proved, 
'  that  the  words,  the  oracles  of  God.'  imply  in 
'  them,  justification,  sanctification  aiid  eternal  life, 
'  this  single  passage  settles  the  point  at  once.'  P. 
14,  oiote. 

For  the  proper  understanding  of  this  passage 
you  will  sufter  a  few  observations. 

1st.  That  by  the  'oracles  of  God,'  we  are  to  un- 
der>;tand  the  scriptures  of  tnilh,  and  that  in  Rom. 
3.  2.  we  are  chiefly  to  understand  oid  lestymcnt 
scriptures,  hecautie  the'-e  were  given  to  the  sub- 
jects of  circumcision  first. 

2nd.  We  are  in  a  t^till  more  extensive  sense,  to 
understand  by  these  opficles,  all  the  ordinances 
warranted  by  the  scriptures,  together  with  all  the 
previleges  they  contained.  These,  the  same  a- 
po5tle  and  in  the  same  epistlf ,  declares  to  be  the 
peculiar  privilege  of  the  subjects  of  circumcision. 
Rom  9.  4-  'Who  are  Isralites;'  to  whom  perfain- 
eth  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants, 
and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God, 
and  the  promises.'  This,  the  old  testament  church 
knew  to  be  their  peculiar  previlege.  Deut.  4.  8. 
'And  what  nation  is  so  great,  that  hath  statutes 
and  Judgments  so  righteou-,  as  all  this  law,  which 
I  set  before  you  this  day.'  Now,  sir, 'the  church 
of  God  i?  one  and  indivisible.'  Therefore  all  these 
ordinances  are,  in  every  age  of   the  world,  the 


A  LEin'ER.  255 

special  property  of  the  church.  This  sentiment  is 
fully  confirmed  in  Psalms,  98.  5.  6. 

In  what  sense  are  we  to  understand  the  Scrip- 
tures of  truth?  I  answer,  in  no  other  sense,  than 
a  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  I  consi- 
der the  scriptures  to  he  the  written  testament  of 
Christ,  sealed  by  his  blood,  as  testator.  Will  you 
say  that  Christ,  as  testator,  sealed  two  wilk,  one 
an  ecclesiastical  will,  the  other  the  testament  of 
grace?  The  apostlr,  therefore,  in  asserting  that 
it  was  a  benefit  arising  from  circumcision,  that 
unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God; 
which  by  the  reasoning  before,  must  have  inti- 
mated, that  a  djppensation  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  was  the  peculiar  privilege  of  the  subjects 
of  circumcisio!!. 

This,  i['deed,you  appear  to  concede  in  page  81. 
'But  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  secured  only 
'  the  ordinances  of  religion,  as  the  means  of  grace 
*  to  the  circumosed.'  But  what  can  any  person 
understand  by  the  ordinances  of  religion,  but  a 
dispensation  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of 
grac^?  Now,  these  ordinances  belonged  to  the 
covanant  of  circumcision;  therefore  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  were  dispensed  in  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  or  in  other  words,  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  was  a  dispensation  of 
the  covenant  of  grace. 

To  the-e  Israelites,  the  subjects  of  circumcision, 
'pertained  the  promises.'  Rom.  9.  4.  In  what  co- 
venant were  these  promises  contained.'*  I  think 
you  will  grant,  that  thfy  were  gospel  promises, 
and  if  so,  you  will  notdetiy  that  they  were  promis- 
es of  the  covenant  of  grace.  It  follows  that  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  was  a  dispensation  of 
the  covenant  of  grace. 


256  A  LETTER. 

But  until  it  is  proved,  that  the  words,  the  'ora- 
cles of  God'  imply  in  them,  jusu(ication,sanctif]ca- 
tion  and  eternal  life,  this  single  pns-age  settles 
the  point.'  Now,  sir,  I  would  have  su[)posed, 
that  little  reasoning  was  necessary  to  prove  to  you, 
that  in  the  'oracles  of  God,'  justification  &c.  were 
dispensed  to  nnen,  and  that  he,  who  by  a  living 
faith,  received  these  oracles,  received  in  them  all 
tiicse  spiritual  blessings. 

Do  you  believe,  that  there  is  any  outward  dis- 
pensation of  the  covenant  of  grace?  If  there  is, 
it  must  be  the  Scriptures  of  truth;  the  oracles  of 
God;  the  word  preached,  &c.  why  then  deny 
that  ju'^tiftcAiioii,  sanctification  and  eternal  life, 
are  dispensed  in  these  oracles? 

Now,  wliiit  is  your  theory  on  the  subject  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision? 

1st.  Thit  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  an 
ecclesiastical  covenant;  containing,  no  proraises, — 
for  had  it  pos  essedany  promises,  and  these  have 
bef^n  ciaimeil  by  faith,  still  it  could  not  have  dis- 
pe  ised  purdon  or  eternal  life — it  was  not  a  dis- 
pens'Uioii  of  the  covenant  of  grace:  it  had  none  of 
these  ble^sina:?  in  it. 

2iid.  Tlieie  are  two  covenants  existing  b.'itween 
God  and  mm;  one  of  which  contains  the  means, 
the  otlier  the  end.  But  had  the  covenant  of  grace 
been  a  perfect  contract,  then  it  would  have  con- 
tained bjth  mf'ans  and  end;  it  would  have  contain- 
ed all  the  provisions,  conditions,  and  mean'^,  neces* 
eary  to  put  all  its  subjects  into  full  possession  of 
all  its  blessings.  And  then  one  of  two  covenants 
w^'Uld  have  been  unnecessary, 

3id.  This  ecclesiastical  covenant,  has  but  one 
sign,  or  seal;thii  w.is  circumcision,  and  is  now 
baptism.    All  the  things    signified  or  sealed,  arft 


A  LETTER.  257 

means — no  Bpiritual  blessings, — for  this  reason, 
tliat  a  seal  is  a  eecuiitj  for  the  blessings  contain- 
ed in  the  covenant  alone,,  to  which  it  is  appended. 
In  a  word,  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  not 
a  gospel  covenant;  because  the  gospel  is  a  dis- 
pensation of  the  covenant  of  girace.  It  is  fndeed 
on  this  plan,  difficult  to  say,  what  the  covenant  ©f 
circumcision  was;  unless  you  say  with  me,  that  it 
was  a  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

The  SECOND  POINT,  in  which  I  differ  from  the 
sentiments  you  have  expressed,  on  the  s\ibject  of 
debate,  between  Mr.  Campbell  and  myself,  is  that 
which  you  declare  to  be  the  design  of  circumci- 
sion and  baptism.  You  say,  'I  do  not  consider 
*  circumcisioD  and  baptism,  as  primarily  designed, 
'for  the  purpose  of  building  up  believers  in  holi- 
*ness;  but  as  ordinances  designed. for  the  conver- 
'  sioi)  of  sinners,  of  a  certain  character.'  page  39. 
This  ^certain  character^''  or  qualification  necessary 
in  order  to  admit  adults  to  baptism,  or  parents  who 
desire  iheir  children  admitted  by  this  ordinance, 
you  declare  to  be  'a  speculative  faith,  and  sense 
of  guilt.'  Your  reader  now  perceives  the  reason 
why  you  deny  circumcision  and  b  .ptism  to  be 
seals  of  the  coveiiant  of  gruce,  because  they  inti- 
mate no  interest  in  Christ,  but  nre  only  means  to 
interest.  It  is  a  way  to  pus^es-s  the  blessings, 
but  is  not  a  seal  of  possession. 

I  shall  now  give  som?:  reasons,  why  I  cannot 
subscribe  the  sentiments  you  have  expressed  on 
this   subject. 

That   the  faith  required  of  persons,  ii'  ord  r  to 

their  admission   to  this  ord^r.aricf^,   is  not,  ^s  you 

suppose,  a  «pecuhitive,  bu    a  true-.i'd  Tving  faith 

is  evident,  because  no  otaer  kind  of  faiUi  was,  or 

X  2 


258  A  LETTER. 

indeed  could  be,required  by  the  divine  law.  It  is,  I 
b'  lieve,  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  law  of  God  re- 
qtiiris  a  faith,  the  very  character  of  which  is  diso- 
bedience. You  will  certainly  concede,that  the  gos- 
pel of  Christ,  pre§,ents  to  every  person,  where  it 
comes,  all  the  ble^ings  it  contains.  The  hw  of 
pod  requires  every  sinner  to  accept  these  bless- 
ina;^;,  and  this  it  requires  under  the  pains  and  pen- 
ally of  eternal  death.  But  it  cannot  be  supposed- 
that  a  temporary,  or  speculative  -faith,  will  an- 
swer the  Divine  requisition,  or  will  such  faith  de- 
liver from  the  punishment  due  to  uiibelief,  why 
then  suppose  that  such  faith  can  be  a  true  pre-rc- 
quisite,  entitling  us  to  any  ordinance? 

TiiCtrue  state  of  a  person,  not  possessing  sav- 
ing faith,  is,  that  he  is  a  child  of  wrath.  From  this 
character,  he  is  not  delivered  by  'speculative 
faith,'  or  a  'sense  of  guilt.'  In  relation  to  the 
gospel  of  Jesus,  the  whole  duty  of  a  sinner  is 
marked  out  by  the  divisie  law.  It  requires  him 
to  accept  Christ  as  his  baviour,  and  all  the  bless- 
ings that  centre  in  him.  A  sinner,  feeling  con- 
virxed  of  the  truth  of  the  following  assertions, 
that  Je?us  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  sinners,  that 
the  law  requires  him  to  accept  of  Christ,  as  his 
Saviour:  that  he  is  a  guilty  sinner,  that  without 
faith  he  must  be  damned, — is  willing  to  make  a 
profession  of  these  truths.  Query,  will  he  have 
in  consequence  of  this,  his  faith,  any  interest  in 
the  covenant  of  grac^t,  or  a  right  to  any  of  its 
ble«sings?  No  sir,  when  the  faith  of  the  man  ad- 
vances no  further,  when  he  refuses  to  appropri- 
ate the  blessings^  that  he  need<»,  and  to  obey  the 
law  which  he  is  persuaded  requires  such  appro- 
priation, hia  guilt  is   greatly  increased;  he  knows 


A  LET  I ER.  255 

his  master's  will,  and  does  U  not;  he  is  entitled  to 
many  stripes,  hut  not  to  any  privileges. 

For  the  establishment  of  your  theory,  you  first 
reason  from  the  character  given  of  the  church. 
'Abraham  and  all  his  servants  were  circumcised.' 
'I  would  now  ask,  if  you  can  believe,  that  all 
'these,  with  all  their  countless  offspring:,  to  the 
^coming  of  the  Mesiah,  were  true  believers.'  P. 
•40.  I  }»nswer  that  the  former  sysstem  on  this  sub- 
ject, does  not  require  us  to  believe  that  they  were 
all  united  to  Christ  by  faith.  It  only  requires  us 
to  bflieve,  that  it  w.as  thfir  duty  and  the  duty  of 
their  seed,  t!iat  desire  the  ordinance  of  circumci- 
sion for  themselves  or  their  children,  to  possess  a 
true  and  living  faith.  True  holiness,  vi^hich  could 
have  no  existence  without  saving  faith,  was  re- 
quired in  the  very  introduction  of  the  covenant 
of  circumcision.  Gen.  17.  1.  'Walk  before  me, 
and  be  thou  perfect.'  To  that  which  was  contain- 
ed in  the  covenant  of  circumcisson,  all  its  sub- 
jects were  bound,  and  of  this  they  made  a  public 
profe-^sion,  when  they  were  circumcised.  In  re- 
ceiving this  ordinance,  they  must  therefore  have 
agreed,  to  walk  before  God  perfectly;  to  receive 
the  Lord  as  their  God  A' mighty,  v.  1.  To  re- 
ceive the  blessings  of  this  covenant  as  everlast- 
ing. V.  7.  But  because  Abraham  was  required 
io  teach  this  covenant  to  all  under  his  care,  and 
because  the  Head  of  the  church  recognized  him 
as  a  man,  who  would  'command  his  children  and 
his  liousehold  after  him;  Chap.  18.  19.  There- 
fore, to  his  household  also,  was  extended  the  seal 
of  these  privileges.  If  any  of  these  w».'r.3  found 
irreligious,  they  were  like  other  apostates, 'cove- 
nant  breakers.' 

Every  parent  presenting  his  child  for  baptism, 


260  ALFTTER. 

is  required  as  Abraham  was,  to  walk  before  God 
am]  be  perKC?,  and  to  pos-ess  that  faith,  by  vvliich 
alone,  his  obedience  can  be  acceptable,  and  to 
'commdiid  hi«  f;hi]dr.-n  and  his  household  after 
him;'  and  in  the  vv^;y  of  engagm^?  to  these  duties, 
to  recf^ive  this  ordin^^nce. 

In  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  contained 
the  three  following  things. 

1st.  The  duties  required. 

2iid.  The  proaiis(!S  statedi 

3rd.  The  seal  affixed. 

In  receiving  the  last,  the  subjects  of  that  cove- 
nant were  bound  by  f  lith,  to  receive  the  promises, 
and  essay  the  duties.  I  therefore  reason,  that 
the  obedience  which  God  required  in  this  and  ev- 
ery other  covenant,  in  whicii  he  is  a  party,  must 
be  rendered  according  to  the  true  spirit  arid  in- 
tention of  his  law,  w^hich,you  will  acknowledge, 
is  by  saving  faith  alone.  In  every  case  wtiere  the 
gospel  presents  a  promise,  the  law  requires  the 
ace.  ptance  of  faith.  But  a  promise  was  given  to 
Abr  tham  and  to  his  seed,  in  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, b'^fnre  he  was  circumcised,  and  he 
possessed  the  faith  required, proved  in  Rom.  4.  1 1. 
But  that  which  was  (he  moral  duty  of  Abraham, 
is  also  the  duty  of  all  desiiingto  be,  as  he  was, 
initiated  intotlte  cluirch  of  Christ.  It  is  their  du- 
ty first  to  lielicve  the  proms^s  of  the  t^ospe!,  by  a 
livinti  faith.  2nd.  T-  prof'S-  a  determination 
throuirh  the  grace  of  G  >d  pr  tmised,  to  live  a  ho- 
ly ii)  :.  3rd.  To  receive  b-ptism  for  themselves, 
or  uteir  c!  Idren.  This  is  found  to  b;'  the  order 
by  which  Abriham  and  his  household  were  adiuit- 
ted. 

You  reason  from  the  letter  or  form  of  expr'^s- 
sioD  u-^td  io  Scripture.     'How  opposite  to  wnat 


A  LETTER,  sai 

*  is  said  in  the  scriptures  of  Zion,  of  the  church, 
'and  of  Z'lon  it  shall  be  said  this  arid  that  nian 
'  was  born  in  her  '  And  Jerusalem,  (another  epi- 
'thet   of  tlie  church,)  which  is  above  ar\d  is  free^ 

*  is  said  to  be  the 'Mother  of  us  all.'  page  41.- 

On  the  first  of  these  text?,  I  observe,  that  yoU 
would. certainly  consider  tlie  promise  equally  ac- 
complished, in  the  admission  of  tliose  regenerated 
before  they  are  admitted  into  the  church,  that 
you  would  of  those  converted  after  they  become 
members;  if  so,  yeu  cannot  then  draw  any  »rgu- 
mentfri^m  the  passage,  in  favor  of  your  hypothe- 
sis. To  give  your  opinion  its  full  force  upon  the 
•passage,  it  is;  that  the  church  receives  honor  a- 
lone,  from  those  who  enroll  themselves,  among 
her  citizens,  at  a  tinte  when  they  are  enemies  to 
God  by  wicked  Morks;  because  they  are  ungene- 
rnte  sinners,  or  in  otl.er  woids,  the  way  to  seek 
tlie  face  of  Jacob,  so  as  to  honor  him  with  their 
birth,  is  to  seek  I  im  in  that  way  which  dishonors 
his  Lord;  a  sentimetit,  you  wculd  as  unwillingly 
subscribe  sis  niysc  If.  I  consider  the  true  import 
of  the  passage  to  be,  that  in  a  day  of  the  reviving 
of  the  church, converts  of  every  tiation  i-.nd  toi.gue, 
\\\]\  reckon  it  their  true  glory  to  become  citizens 
cl"  Zion,  and  consider  it  as  truly  their  native 
kifi;^dom,-as  if  they  had  beeii  born  Jews,  and  had 
Ab:aham  fir  a  natural  father.  And  with  me  a- 
grees  Molierus,  who  has  e{iven  a  celebrated  com- 
mentary on  the  hook  of  Ps.dms.  Of  much  the 
sane  import,  is  (le  sf^conci  passage  you  quote. 

You  reason  t>om  Rom.  H.  20.  'Well,  becctuse 
of  unbelief  they  were  broken  oft,  and  fhou  stand- 
esi  by  faith.'  You  ob'^erve  on  tliis  passage:  'It 
•felloes  by  fair  fot'sjequeiice,  that  !he  fitith  by 
'  \vhich  the  Jews  stood,  was  a  faith  that  conld  be. 


2G2  A  LETTER. 

'  and  was  .lost;  but  tins  is  not  the  case  with  the 
*  faith  of  God's  elect.'  But  permit  me  to  obi^erve, 
that  tlie  faith  which  they  tbr-ook,  was  the  same, 
by  whicli  the  Hew  te?tament  church  stands;  be- 
cause 'unbelief  is  not  the  con'rary  of  a  specula- 
tive, but  of  a  true  friith,but  they  had  substituted 
unbelief  for  its  contrary,  and  therefore  were  bro- 
ken off.  It  follows  that  they  once  stood  by  the 
same  faith,  in  which  we  now  stand.  Would  it 
not  be  absurd  to  '^a.y  that  the  church,  at  any  period, 
stood  by  a  speculative  fhith.?  h  it  not  the  sume, 
as  saying,  that  she  once  stood  by  unbelief? 

I  believe,  sir,  that  if  the  wl^ole  Jewisli  nation 
had  possessed  a  speculative  faith,  &,  had  expres- 
sed the  same  as  the  centurian,  who  c  -mmanded 
the  bnnd  of  murderers  that  killed  Christ  did, 
their  true  situation  would  have  been  no  beiter 
than  It  Wijs,  they  would  still  have  been  broken 
olf. 

It  follows,  that  the  Jewish  Church  lost  true 
and  living  faith.  Although  no  individual,  ihat 
possessed  this^  faith,  ever  lost  it,  yet  the  Jewish 
nation  lost  their  church  character;  they  ceased  to 
be  a  body  under  Christ,  the  hiad;  and  such  of 
tjjeir  members,  as  had  a  true  and  hving  faith, 
were  the  branches,  by  which  itie  church  continu- 
ed, and  amouii  whom,  the  New-Testament  bran-^ 
ches  were  giafted. 

In  your  examination  of  that  faith"  ar;d  repen- 
terce,  which  you  suppose  were  required  in  the'iT 
adaiission  to  briplism,  you  tirst  reason  from  Acts, 
2.  36.  "Tl^en  Peter  said  unto  them,  repent  and 
bf-  b:iptise-a,  every  orse  of  you,  in  the  r.ame  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  &  \e  shall  re- 
ceive the  gift  of  the  Holv  Ghost."  A?  to  the  vari- 
ous meanings  you  have  given  us,  of  ihc  word  re- 


A  LETTER  263 

penfance,  I  have  no  piuticular  objections:  but  the 
re.aso;<.3  you  ofF.r,  vvny  this  word,  m  the  passage, 
is  not  to  be  unaert-tood  as  evangehcal  reperjtance, 
do  not  satisJy  me:  because  you  suppose  that  we 
can  only  infer  fsom  the  declarntion  of"  Peter,  that 
he  required  ft  change  of  loind.  "Pefer  sHys,  met- 
anoesate,  rUwn^e  your  minds,  with  respect  to  this 
Je^us  of  Nazareth,  w'lom  yc  have  coni^idtred  as 
an  impostor,  and  cr\icified  as  such,  and  as  an  evi- 
dence that  your  change  of  rnuid  is  rtal,  'be  bap- 
tized, every  one  of  you.'  That  something  more 
than  a  simple  change  of  mind,  was  required  by 
the  Apostle,  is  evident,  from  the  influence  that 
the  sermon  he  had  just  preacbed,  hiul  upon  them; 
Hhtry  were  pricked  in  their  heart.'  This  ititimated 
a  deep,  piercing  wcund,  that  the  teruioi"  had  pro- 
duced m  their  consciences;  strona'  legal  coiivictlon, 
it  wf.s  evident  that  they  wert  afraid,  that  ihe  men, 
whom  they  had  crucified  ard  slain,  would  »gain 
apfear  as  their  awtul  Jwdg>^.  to  t?b:e  veiiireaiice 
or.  their  wicked  conduct,  v.  37.  "Now  whet!  they 
had  heard  this,  they  were  pricked  in  their  heart, 
and  said  unto  Peter,  and  to  the  rpst  of  the  Apostles, 
men  and  brethern,  what  shall  we  do?"'  according 
to  your  view  of  the  subject,  Peter's  answer  impli- 
,  ed  nothing  more  than  that  which  they  had  alrea- 
dy expressed  — Nay,  he  required  even  less;  it  was 
only,  'change   your  mirds.' 

I  also  object  to  the  construction  you  give  the 
words  used  by  Peter:  "For  the  remission  of  sins." 
'This  baptism  is' for  the  remission  of  sins,'  'or  a 
'mean  appointed  by  him,  that  you  rrtfey  receive 
Hhe  remission  of  your  sins.'  P.  43.  Savins  fath 
is  the  proper  mean  of  Justification,  or  tl-.e  remis- 
sion of  sins;  by  this  act  we  claim  the  rightt-c^us- 
ness  of  Christ,  the  alone  ground  of  Pardon.     The 


1264  A  LETTER. 

Scripture  has  established  the  connexion  and  order 
of  means,  and  end  u.  list  work  of  coi  '.  f  r.-ior.  R  m. 
10.  17:  'Faitti  cometii  bv  hCJui  .t^.  and  ht-aring 
by  the  word  of  God.'  Cl;ap.  3.  28,  ''Tht  rtfore  we 
ccriclude.  th.t  a  ma.:  is  jusiilifd  by  taith.'  Re- 
pentance IP  not,  in  Scrip! ure,  d  cl^tred  to  be  a 
Hi"  a:  ol  ihe  'reirii>^siou  of  sni,'  but  le;^-al  repen- 
tance is  produ(  ed  by  ih'  coMirtncr;  i  pparaiion,  and 
evatjgGhc'.l  rej,  enlance,  b}  thespeeial  a,  I'arations 
of  ih-e  Sp;rit  (.i  God;  tie  turmer  prtcet  ihiig,  aiid 
the  1. Iter  tollown-g,  justification,  nnd  iiisttad  (f 
btii.g  a  mean,  is  a  piojiir  cont^equtfice  of  ii. 

On  the  view  )(  u  ha\e  takeri  of  this  passage,  1 
conctde,  th.ai  'baptism  is  a  budge  cf  disciple-;  ip 
lo  C.  rist.'  But  does  sprculativ*^  fs>ith,  or  if^-al 
repentance  consiiiute  a  ninn,  &  disciph  if  Ciirisl? 
If  s-o,  n  can  only  bi   a  budge  of  h\[)Ocrisy.  ^ 

I  al<o  cuncedi  the  truth  ol  liie  reasm  yi.u  give, 
why  Pet(  r  nqnrtd  thtm  ti  be  baptise.;;  'as  ao 
eviiie  ce  thiit  \our  change  of  mitid  .s  resl.  be  fif.p- 
tij^ed,  every  (lie  ofvou,  in  tie  name  cl  Chri.-l.' 
But,  Sir,  ii^  lenal  repenti^nce  acconipaiied  with  a 
sptr'cul.i'ive  fa-lh,  "b  rrai  charige  of  mind,'  in  the 
eyes  of  God?  !-  it  doI  a  repentanci-,  which  ntcds 
"to  be  rep'  nted  of? 

In  a  word,  my  view  of  (he  pas-=age  is,  that  tlie 
Apo-tle.  used  the  vvoidr.  Meperit,  eviry  oi  e  of 
you,' to  ii  timate  the  insufficiency  of  that  lepen- 
tanee,  whch  they  lipd  alieadj  manifested,  by 
\Th;<'-h  tl  ey  vvrre  pricked  to  the  iieart;  r.nd  there- 
fore !0V\  requires  from  them  a  leptntarce.  en- 
tirely distinct  in  its  nature,  fin  evanjieiic;;!  repen^ 
tancc:  becsuse  r.  repent:.rce,  built  upon  the  for- 
rher,  would  be  'like  the  morning  eh  ud  and  early 
deu  ;'  it  would  'pass  juvay.'  The  spirit  of  his  lan- 
guage, then  is,  having  a  true  hold  of  the  righte- 


A  LETTER.  265 

ousness  of  Christ,  the  Lord,  whom  *ye  have  cruci- 
fied and  slain,'  and  possessing  a  Godly  sorrow  for 
the  sin  of  crucifying  bim,  come  forward,  and  give 
an  evidence  of  the  sincerity  of  these,  your  exer- 
cises, by  enlisting  under  his  banner,  by  claiming 
a  gospel  security,  for  obtaining  the  blessings  he 
has  purchased,  by  your  receiving  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  and  thereby,  evidence  to  the  world,that 
you  have  claimed  his  pardoning  mercy,  manifested 
in  the  forgiveness  of  your  sins. 

You  argue,  that  the  faith  required,  was  only    a 
speculative  faith. 

1st.  From  acts  8.  12,  18.  'But  when  they  be- 
lieved Philip,  preaching  the  things  concerning 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus 
(vhrist,  tliey  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women; 
then  Simon  himself  believed  also:  and  when  he 
was  baptized,  &c.  What  was  the  faith  these  per- 
■^ons  prefes.^ed  to  have?  I  answer,  it  was  a  living, 
and  not  a  speculative  faith.  That  any  of  them 
possesed  a  true  faith,  1  cannot  say,  but  that  they 
made  a  profession  of  this  faith,  is  the  thing  in  ques- 
tion, and  that  which  I  shall  endeavour  to  prove. 

It  is  evident  first  from  the  case  of  bimon  Ma- 
gus. The  faith  which  he  had,  we  percieve  was 
not  real;  It  is  evident  from  the  character  given  of 
him  by  Peter,  that  he  acted  hypocritically,  when 
he  made  the  profession  of  his  faith.  'Thy  heart 
is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God.'  He  professed  to 
be,  that  which  he  was  not.  He  was  among  those 
of  whom  the  Psalmist  speaks.  'Nevertheless 
they  did  flatter  him  with  their  mouth,  and  fhey 
lied  to  him  with  their  tongues;  for  their  heart 
was  not  right  with  him;  neither  were  they  sted- 
fast  in  his  covenant.'  Psal.  78.  36,  37.  But  if 
Simon  Magus  had  professed  nothing,  but  a  spec- 
Y 


266  A  LETTER. 

ulative  faith,  Philip  might  have  address^  him  in 
the  stile  of  Peter  at  the  time  he  offered  "  himself  a 
candidate  for  'baptism,  he  might  then  have  told 
^him  that  hi^  heurt  was  not  rigat  with  God.'  Be- 
cause his  fiiith  was  only  speculative.  Na}*,  Phi- 
lip might  then  have  declared,  'I  perceive  that  thou 
a-rt  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of  in- 
iquity, the  state  in  which  every  sinner  is,  who 
possesses  nothing,  but  a  speculative  faith.  Thus 
according  to  your  view,  the  ministers  were  not 
deceived  in  the  character  of  Simon  Magus,  he  pro- 
fessed the  faitii  wfiich  in  fact  he  possessed — a 
speculative  faith  He  was  no  hypocrite — his 
profession  and  faith  agreed,  whic!»  I  think,  how- 
ever, is  very  different  from  llie  history  given  of 
him  in  the  scripture. 

The  faith  of  the  other  persons  admitted  by  Phi- 
lip, may  be  judge  1,  by  the  subject  of  Philip's  ser- 
mon; it  was  the 'kingdom  of  God'  In  which,  it 
is  evident,  that  he  so  displayed  the  privileges  of 
this  kingdom,  as  that  they  were  willingto  enroll 
themselves  among  her  citizens.  But  did  Phil  if » 
preach  that  they  should  only  yield  in  historical 
faith.  No,  lie  must  have  tauglit  that  the  King  of 
this  kingdom,  was  the  Lord  their  righteousness.' 
VVhen  they  professed  to  believe,  they  certainly 
declared  by  their  profession,  that  they  accepted 
him  as  their  king,  and  his  kingdom  as  their  rest. 
If  their  hearts  corresponded  with  their  profession, 
you  will  agree  with  me,  that  their  faith  was  sav- 
ing. 

That  the  time,  which  they  had  to  judge  of  the 
sincerity  of  their  faith,  was  very  short,  I  grant; 
yet  the  spirit  of  God  at  that  time,  wrought  with 
niucVi  greater  power,  than  it  does  at  present,  and 
therefore,  a  shorter  time  for  judgement  was  suffici- 


A  LETTER  261 

em  at  that  time,  than  at  the  present.  They  were 
however,  sometimes  deceived,  and  so  are  ytm  and 
F,  even  when  we  have  a  previous  knowledge 
of  persons  for  years. 

You  suppose  that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  file 
the  cases  of  the  Eunuch,  and  Lydia  as  exceptions 
to  the  theory  you  have  given.  Because,  you  say 
in  case  of  the  Eunuch,  either  h€  was  a  true  be- 
liever before,  and  then  it  does  not  lie  in  contro- 
•  versy — or  that  the  statement  given  does  not  neces- 
sarily suppose  saving  faith;  and  'import^  nothing' 
more  than  sincerity.'  pBge  45.  But  sir,  I  hope 
that  a  plain  view  of  the  statement  will  convince 
you"  to  tlie  contrary.  Act  8.  36,  37.  'And  the 
Eunuch  said.,  ?ee,  here  is  water,  what  dolh  hinder 
me  to  be  baptized?  And  Philip  said,  if  thou  bc- 
licVest  with  all  thine  heart  thou  mayest,'  The 
pre-requisite  here  required  for  admission  to  bap- 
tism, was  believing  with  all  the  heart,  this  was 
the  moral  requisition,  less  than  this  either  express- 
ed or  implied,  could  not  be  required. —  Christ  de* 
manded  the  same,  although  not  mentioned  as  a 
pre-requisite  to  baptism.  Luke  10.  27.  'Thou 
f  halt  love  the  Lord  thy  God,  with  all  thy  heart, 
and  with  all  thy  s'oul,  and  with  all  thy  strength, 
end  with  all  thy  mind.'  It  is  in  this  way  alone, 
that  this  command  of  God  is  to  be  obeyed.  'That 
■we  should  believe  on  the  name  of  his  son  Jesus 
Christ.'  L' John  3.  23.  Now  sir,  how  was  the  Eu- 
nuch required  to  believe.'* 'With  all  thy  heart,'  i.  e. 
with  your  whole  soul  accept  Jesus  a«  the  Lord 
your  righteousness.  Who  will  say  with  you,  that 
this  command  only  required  speculative  faith  .-^ 

Whatever  n/ay  be  reasoned  from  the  language 
of  the  Eunuch's  reply,  this  must  be  evident,  that 
Philip  received  it  as  an  ariswer  to    his  pre-requi- 


268  A  LETTER. 

^te;  and  that  he  hereby  declared  that  Jesus  was 
the  son  ofGodjthat  he  accepted  him  as  his  divine 
Saviour,  and  declared  his  willingness  to  make  a 
public  profession  of  his  name,  by  receiving  the 
the  sacriment  of  baptism.  But  if  Philip  only  re- 
quired speculative  faith,  and  this  the  only  faith 
pos£es?ed,  then  this  was  another  admission  like 
Simon  Magus — they  both  had  speculative  faith;  it 
was  all,  according  to  your  opinion  Philip  required 
of  either. 

The  same  observations  will  apply  to  all  the  oth- 
er cases  you  mention,  such  as  Saul  oi  Tarsus,  the 
jailor  &c.  whether  any  or  all  of  these  persons  were 
converted  prior  to  their  baptism,  I  cannot  deter- 
mine, but  liie  question  is  what  kind  of  faith  was 
required  cf  them  before  their  admission  to  bap- 
tism? I  shall  conclude  this  subject,  by  pimply 
stating  n  fc'.v  further  arguments  in  favor  of  the 
position  I  have  espoused. 

ARGUMENT,     FIRST. 

If  God  never  required  any  faith  but  a  living 
faith,,  then  a  speculative  faith  is  net  a  moral  pre- 
requisite to  baptism. 

But  the  iormer  is  true,  and  therefore  the  latter. 

The  argument  is  proved,  Heb.  11.  6.  'But 
without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  him.'  To 
say  that  God  would  in  any  case  require  specula- 
tive faith,  is  to  say  that  he  lepuires  that  which 
would  displease  him. 

ARGL'MEI^T,    SECOND. 

Tf  the  moral  law   demands   perfect  obedience, 


A  LETTER.  269 

then  it  never  did  require  in  any  case    speculative 
faith. 

But  the  former  is  true,  and  therefore  the  latter. 

I  suppose  you  will  not  deny  any  of  the  terms  of 
this  syllogism.  But  the  conclusion  is  equally  true 
and  fair,  because  the  divine  lavi^  cannot  require 
any  obedirnce  shortof  that  which  pleases  God — If 
t)ie  law  requires  saving  faith  we  cannot  obey  its 
commands  by  yielding  speculative  faitl). — 

What  object  is  to  be  gained  by  planting  dead 
trees  in  a  garden, — trees  that  possess  no  living 
principle? — You  may  water  and  dung  about  them 
they  decay  the  more  speedily.  Yet  sir,  you  would 
allow  the  keepers  of  Christ's  vineyard  to  fill  it 
with  such  vines —  people  having  only  a  dead 
faith. 

Is  this  not  a  speedy  meihod  to  corrupt  t!ic 
church  of  Christ. — To  till  it  with  those  that  hate 
liim,  all  unbelievers  are  haters  of  Christ — their* 
character  is  not  changed  by  possessing  a  specula- 
tive faith. 

Christ  has  appointed  ordinances  to  prepare  the 
sinner  for  enterino"  into  the  church,  let  these  be 
faitlifully  used.  When  they  appear  to  have  gam- 
ed their  object,  then  let  the  person  be  admitted 
by  baptism  into  the  churc'i. 

The  THIRD  and  only  point  of  disagreement  that 
f  shall  now  mention  is  the  view  yon  have  given 
vis  of  the  baptism  of  John,  as  you  have  not  rea- 
soned any  on  this  point,  lint  rather  appears  to  take 
it  for  an  assertion  which  none  would  cantra'.lic!; 
I  rather  thought  it,  at  least,  my  duty  to  notice  it, 
lest  you  might  suppose,  that  I  was  among  the 
number  of  them,  tfiat  believed  that  the  baptism 
of  John  was  not  christian  bapti-m.  You  asterf, 
*that  admitting   that  it  could  be   incoiitrovel'iiblv 


270  A  LETTER. 

'proved,  tliat  John's  baptism  was  administered  by 
immersion,  yet  it  would  not  thence  follow  that 
'christian  baptism,  was  to  be  administtred  in  tlie 
*same  manner.  John's  baptism  belonged  not  to 
'the  christian,  but  to  the  Jewish  dispensation  of 
grace,'  pace  58. 

"  Upon  this  I  intend  to  make  but  a  very  few  ob- 
sevvulions,  in  1  have  already  exceeded  the  usual 
bounds  of  a  letter. 

Those  who  deny  John's  baptism  to  be  christian 
baptism,  objecl ;  1st.  That  it  was  instituted  un- 
der the  old  Old  Testament  dispensation,  1  an- 
swer, so  also  was  the  Lord's  supper.  The  death 
of  Ciirist  was  the  close  of  the  former  dispensa- 
tion Every  precept  of  the  cerimonial  law,  had 
its  full  force,  until  all  its  typical  rites  had  their 
accomplishnient  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  great  an- 
titype; but  prior  to  this  event,  the  Lord's  supper 
was  instituted.  Althoui^h  it  was  indeed  shortly 
belorc  the  close  of  that  dispensation,  yet  it  is  suf- 
ficient that  it  was  instituted  before  the  death  of 
Christ,  it  was  instituted  under  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation;  and  therefore  according  to  your  ag- 
sertion  cannot  be  a  New  Testament  ordinance^ 

3nd.  It  is  objected,  that  it  was  in  existence  be- 
fore that  circumcision  ceased  to  be  an  ordinance 
of  the  church,  and  therefore  could  not  come  in 
the  room  of  circumcision.  I  answer,  tljat  all  or- 
dinances exist  in  the  church,  according  to"  the 
will  of  her  head  and  Lord.  He  may,  or  may 
not  appoint  seals  according  to  his  righteous  plea- 
sure. 

I  conclude,  that  for  a  short  season,  three  seals 
existed  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  this 
concession  implies  no  more,  than  that  the  church 
having  for  a  long  pegod  of  time,  been  accustom- 


A  LETTER.  27  ^ 

ed  to  circumcision,  as  the  initiating  seal  of  tlie 
covenant  of  grace,  were  gradually  introduced  to 
the  ordinances  of  the  New  Testannent,  tlie  present 
dispensation  gradually  appeared;  the  darkness  of 
that  dispensation,  by  the  appearing  of  the  son  of 
rii^hteousness,  was  by  degrees  diminished,  but 
before  their  dispensation  was  closed,  our  ordi- 
nances," which  were  to  take  the  place  of  theirs, 
made  their  appearance.  Thus  while  our  fathers 
had  their  own  ordinances,  they  had  the  pleasure 
of  seeing  ours. 

This  hypothesis,  I  suppose,  is  generally  sup- 
ported by  those  who  fear  to  admit  premises,  from 
which  the  baptist  may  draw  conclusions  unfavour- 
able to  pedo-biiptism.  Lest  Mr.  Campbell  might 
have  supposed  that  1  intended  to  have  taken  the 
same  advantage,  I  publicly  intimated  in  an  early 
stage  of  debate,  that  I  believed  John's  baptism  to 
be  christian  bapti«m,and  feared  no  conclusion  my 
opponent  could  draw  from  my  assersion. 

3rd.  It  is  objected,  that  those  baptised  with  the 
baptism  of  John,  were  re-baptised  by  Paul.  Tiiis 
objection  is  founded  on  Acts,  19.  3,  4,  5.  'And  he 
said  unto  them,  unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized? 
and  they  said,  unto  Jolin's  baptism.  Then  said 
Paul,  John  verily  baptised  with  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance, saying  unto  the  People,  that  they  should 
believe  on  him  that  should  come  after  him,  that  is 
on  Christ  Jesus.  When  they  heard  this,  they 
were  baptised  in  the  name  of  ttie  Lord  Jesus.'  Let 
it  be  observed  on  this  passage, 

1st.  That  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  passage,  we 
are  not  to  understand  the  saving  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the  miraculous  outpourings  of 
the  Spirit,  which  commenced  on  the  day  of  pentl- 
cost,  and  continued  lor  some  time  in  the  Church; 


272  A  LETTER. 

because  tlie  person  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  l.i^  sa- 
ving operations,  were  taught  in  the  Old-Testa- 
merit,  to  which  these  converts  hM  acce*?. 

2nd.  That  Paul  ghews  tbem  ihe  naiure  of  John's 
hripijsm,  that  in  that  ordinance,  they  had  been 
taught  the  nature  of  true  repertnnce,  the  charac- 
ter of  Christ  Jesus,  and  the  necessity  of  faith  in 
his5  name. 

ord.  When  Paul  had  shewn  th^  nature  of  John's 
baptism,  he  t!ien  intimates  to  the<e  people, that 
when  the  hearers  of  John  h,ad  uriderstond  this,  his 
docuine,  they  made  a  public  profession  of  the 
fjiith  by  r<ceivirig  his  br.ptism,  and  here  he  is  not 
speaking  paiiicularly  of  the-e  whom  he  lioiv  ad- 
dressed, bu!  of  the   hearers  of  John  in  general. 

4ih.  That  the  Apostle,  firding  tliat  these  peo- 
p'ft  h:id  received  by  faith,  Jesu^  Christ  preached  to 
t'tu  ni  by  John,  and  having  made  a  public  pro- 
fession of  their  faiih,  by  receiving  baptism  from 
John,  he  now  lays  his  hands  upon  them,  that  lliey 
might  receive  the  miraculous  outpourings  of  the 
Holy  vSpirit. 

I  have  now  given  you  the  view  of  Beza,  and 
some  ofthebest  commentators  upon  the  passage;  & 
I  tliink  upon  due  reHccfion,  you  will  agree  that 
these  persons  were  fiot  rt'-baptised.  Indeed,  the 
same  reason  that  would  render  it  gecesgary  to 
re-baptise  these  person?,  would  also  require  the 
re-baptism  of  the  eleven  Apostles,  and  many  oth- 
ers, who  had  no  other  than  John's  baptism. 

That  the  baptism  of  John  was  Christian  baptism, 
will  fp'pearfrom  a  few   observations. 

1st.  That  if  the  baptism  of  John,  was  not 
Ciiristian  bn.ptism,  then  neither  Christ  nor  his 
disciples,  received  christian  baptism. — Christ  did 
not,  he  was  baptized  with  the   baptism   of  John 


A  LETTER.  273 

alon'S,  this  will,  indeed  dishonor  the  New  Testa- 
ment church,  seeing  thatChrist  was  regularly  in- 
itiated a  member  of  the  Old-Testament  church  by 
circumcision,  but  never  was  initialed  a  member 
of  the  New  Testament  by  baptism.  The  eleven 
Apostles  were  never,  according  to  this  doctrine, 
initiated,  by  biiptism,  meinbers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment church — they  were  unbaptized  ministers  of 
Christ — a  doctrine,  which,  I  think  none  should  as- 
sert- 

2nd.  For  the  samfi  reason,  tliat  the  baptism  of 
John  could  not  be  christian  baptism, becaus(.'  it  was 
under  the  former  dispensation.  Th^  baptism  of 
the  disciples,  before  the  dcfttli  of  Christ,  could 
not  be  christian,  not  one  of  the  120  disciples  by 
this,  had  received  chri.^tian  baptism. 

3rd.  The  lanafiiage  of  John  intimatrd  that  his 
baptism  was  christian.  'He  flint  ^er-t  me  to  bap- 
tise.' Had  it  been  any  vi  the  Jewish  washings,  he 
wDuld  have  no  special  commission,  tjie  levitical 
law  would  have  .aiarked  iiis  duty.  11'  the  wash- 
ing by  Johr,  had  bflonged  to  the  Jewish  purga- 
tions, we  should  have  heard  his  baptism,  announ- 
ced at  Mouftt  Sinia,  or  from  (lie  tabernacle  in  the 
wilderness;  but  his  intimation,  tl;at  he  bad  a  dis- 
tinct commission  from  any  of  his  predecessors,  de- 
clares that  he  had  particular  duties  to  discharge, 
not  belonging  to  that  dispensation. 

Thus,  sir,  1  have  taken  a  very  brief  view  of  the 
baptism  ofJohn,ofthe  faith  required  as  prerequi- 
site to  baptism,  and  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as 
administerad  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 

While  I  have  objected  to  some  things  in  your 
letters,  do  not  suppose  that  I  disapprove  of  them 
altogether.  No  sir,  1  believe  you  have  given  suf- 
fieient  and  unanswerable  reasons,   why  the  view 


274  A  LETTER. 

of  bt^ptists  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  should  be 
refused,  and  1  well  believe  that  Mr.  Campbf'll  a- 
grees  with  me  in  thi^,  for  had  he  believed  timt 
your  arguments  could  have  been  ans\yered,  he 
would  not  have  filled  his  stri(;tures  vvit'j  satyre, 
but  witi'  replies,  so  fur  as  you  havw  espoused  the 
cause  of  truth.  I  wish  you  success  and  peace  i;: 
the  Lord. 

Yours,  &c. 

JOHN  WALKER. 
Jim.  \4th,  1324 


FlJflS. 


ERRATJl. 


We  have  only  corrected  such  mistakes  as  particu- 
larly effect  tiia  sense/  such  as  are  evident,  may  be 
corrected  by  the  reader. 

Page  5,  Line  3.  omit  infant.  P.  25,  L,  16,  for  re- 
volution, read  resolution,  p.  28  L.  34  for  longevi- 
ty r.  emigration.  P.  51.  L,  3,  for  3.  r.,5.  P.  52,  L. 
IS,  for  m«v  r.  cannot.  P.  52,  note,  for  Inothi  seauton 
r.  Gaothi  seauton^  know  thyself.  P.  56,  L.  8  for  trans- 
lation r.  transaction.  P.  57.  L.  34  for  appeared  r. 
appended.  P,  64  Ir  12.  omit  not.  P.  89,  L.  10  for 
Srd,  read  2nd.  P.  115  L.  17,  for  covenani",  r. 
iNFEREKCE.  P.  117  L.  6,  for  adopted  r.  adapted. 
P.  118  L.  22,  for  indeed  r.  instead.  •  P.  120  L.  9  for 
interest  r.  intent.  L.  14.  for  interest  r.  intent.  P.  131, 
L.  9,  for  rational  r.  national.  P.  169  L.  8  for  in' 
stitiitions  r.  instructions.  P.  186  L.  23  [or  letters  r. 
inference.  P.  251  L.  23  for  tnre  r.  true.  P.  253 
L.  12  for  prepared  r.  purchased.  P.  264  L.  8  for 
apparation  t.  operation.  L.  9  for  apparation  r.  op- 
eration. 


I*. 


:  r: 


7;^  ^- 


